CASE SPOTLIGHTS
KOH KENG JOO & ANOR v. TAN SRI DATO' SERI KHALID ABU BAKAR & ORS [2026] 3 CLJ 404
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
SU TIANG JOO J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-21NCVC-17-02-2020]
27 NOVEMBER 2025
(i) A victim of an alleged State-involved abduction cannot be denied access to the courts simply because they are missing. The court has the inherent power under O. 15 r. 17 of the Rules of Court 2012 to appoint a litigation representative to seek justice for the disappeared; (ii) Prolonged investigative inertia and 'maladministration' - specifically the failure to act on core factual materials for years - constitute a breach of affirmative statutory duties to prevent and detect crime. Such indifference, particularly when it results in the suppression of evidence or the misdirection of a family's pursuit of information, satisfies the requirements for the tort of misfeasance in public office; (iii) The State owes a specific duty of care to a victim of an unlawful seizure when the State is the only entity with the resources and authority to conduct a search. Operational discretion does not immunise the police from a negligence claim where the exercise of power is unreasonable, in bad faith, or characterised by a pattern of omissions and suppression.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Standing to sue - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Victim's wife appointed as litigation representative - Whether wife had locus standi - Power of court to appoint litigation representative - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 17
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Personal liberty - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether there was violation of constitutional rights - Federal Constitution, arts. 5 & 8
TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether there was breach of statutory duties - Police Act 1967, ss. 3(3) & 20(3) - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 107A , 119 & 120
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Involvement of State and State agents - Whether alleged tortfeasors owed duty of care to claimants - Whether there was breach of duty of care
TORT: Conspiracy - Abduction - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether conspiracy established
TORT: Vicarious liability - Liability of Government for torts committed by police officers - Victim abducted in broad daylight via coordinated tactical operation - Police investigation marked by prolonged inertia and failure to disclose leads - Allegations of evidence suppression, misdirection and breach of statutory duties - Whether officers acting under badge of public authority - Whether Government vicariously liable
JUDICIAL QUOTES
“We are also of the view that the prosecution against the respondent was unjustified and ought not to have been commenced, as her Facebook post did not fall within the ambit of s. 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (‘CMA’). The post that was uploaded was not offensive as it related to a matter of fact and opinion. More significantly, it was not sent with intent to annoy. The mens rea element being absent, there was no basis to warrant a prosecution.”
“The respondent’s Facebook post fell within the ambit of art. 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution (‘FC’), meaning that its content amounted to the exercise of the respondent’s right to free speech and expression.”
“In conclusion, we allow the appeal in part, in that we reverse that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal that struck out the words ‘offensive’ and ‘annoy’ from s. 233(1)(a) of the CMA for being inconsistent with arts. 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of the FC. The impugned words are reinstated in s. 233(1)(a) of the CMA. We affirm the Court of Appeal’s decision that there was no basis to prosecute the respondent on the grounds that her post was offensive and communicated with intent to annoy.” - Per Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ in The Government Of Malaysia v. Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] 3 CLJ 677; [2026] CLJU 250
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2026] CLJU 2
|
PP v. MOHAMED BADRULDIN MOHAMED
The Courts may not perhaps have to wholly reflect public opinion but they certainly must not be indifferent or disregard it. The Courts and in a wider sense the legal system especially the criminal justice system must always protect the impuissant, downtrodden and helpless members of society particularly children, the feeble and other penurious segments of society.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Plea of guilty - Sentence of 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of rotan for offence under s. 302 of Penal Code ('PC') and 10 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of rotan for offence under s. 377C of PC - Victim was nine months old baby - Public interest - Whether sentence meted out was just and proper
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Statements - Victim's impact statement - Admissibility - Statement by victim's mother - Whether statement could be taken into consideration before court passes sentence - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 183A
- For the prosecution - Shahrul Ekhsan Hasim, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
- For the accused - Azizzul Shariman Mat Yusoff; M/s Azizzul & Arif
|
|
[2026] CLJU 5
|
CHONG SWEE SIN v. CHOW TAT SENG & ANOR
Contested matters of fact are plainly unsuitable for summary disposal and require a full ventilation of evidence at trial. Allegations which extend beyond a mere contractual claim, particularly concerning issue of trust monies and accountability for the same are disputed and raises factual and legal issues that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. The existence of disputed facts and unresolved issues of law militates strongly against the grant of reliefs to strike out a claim.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Statement of claim - Allegation of misjoinder of party - Action to recover loan - Solicitors who held monies made as a party - Allegation that solicitors was not a party to loan arrangements between plaintiff and first defendant - Whether statement of claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action - Whether inclusion of solicitors as a party was wrong in law and fact - Whether plaintiff's pleadings disclose an arguable cause of action - Whether there exist triable issues that warrant judicial investigation
- For the plaintiff - Chua Leng Poh; M/s Chua & Ng
- For the defendants - Nurul Eleena; M/s N Ahilan & Associates
|
|
[2025] CLJU 276
|
RISHIPAL SINGH DHANOA CHARANJIT SINGH v. KAWALAN PERTIWI SDN BHD
1. An application to set aside judgment in default of appearance must be filed within the prescribed 30 days timeline. A defendant's failure to act promptly without a reasonable explanation for delay in filing application is sufficient to dismiss an application to set aside judgment in default of appearance.
2. An application to set aside judgment in default of appearance must disclose a prima facie defence that is supported by evidence and not merely based on bare denials. Allegation that there is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit when the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence of communication and payment records linking the defendant to the disputed transactions.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Default judgment - Setting aside - Judgment in default of appearance - Service on corporation - Delay in filing application - Defendant proposed settlement after service of cause papers - Whether writ and statement of claim properly served and complied with O. 62 r. 4 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether defendant acknowledged service - Whether judgment in default regularly obtained - Whether defendant acted promptly in filing application - Whether defendant disclosed prima facie defence supported by evidence - Whether defence mere bare denials - Whether defendant's reliance on without prejudice rule misplaced
- For the Plaintiff - M.Rajenthirakumar R.Malaiapan & Hui Yeat Fong; M/s Kumar & Associates
- For the Defendant - Yap Bing Yew & Leong Yee Dawn; M/s Bing Wen & Associates
|
|
[2025] CLJU 277
|
TEONG PEEK MENG v. TEONG PECK JOO
Once a beneficiary executed a statutory declaration consenting to renounce his entitlement to a property, that renunciation is binding particularly when they are executed with clear intent. Such renunciation constitutes a decisive relinquishment of his rights, rendering any subsequent claim to the property legally untenable. Mere reliance on beneficiary status is insufficient to confer any proprietary right and negate caveatable interest on such property.
LAND LAW: Caveat - Removal of - Private caveat - Caveat lodged by person who executed statutory declaration renouncing entitlement to property before grant of distribution order - Caveat lodged 20 years after issuance of distribution order and registration of ownership in plaintiff's name - Whether defendant had caveatable interest in land - Whether defendant had relinquished rights on property - Whether defendant's claim as beneficiary of deceased estate legally sustainable - Whether allegation of forged statutory declaration sufficient to demonstrate serious questions meriting trial - Whether balance of convenienve lies in favour of removal of caveat - National Land Code 1965, s. 327
- For the plaintiff - Shassidaren Deva Sana Pathy & Jeyaramm Rajan; M/s Maxwell Kenion Cowdy & Jones
- For the defendant - Mohamad Harris Mohan & Amirul Naim Ghazali; M/s The Law Office of Mohd Harris
|
|
[2025] CLJU 279
|
THE EVERLY GROUP LIMITED & ANOR v. HOTEL SCOTT SDN BHD
Section 186 of the Contracts Act 1950 ('CA') provides that in circumstances where an agent was personally liable, a party dealing with the agent had the right to hold either the agent, the principal, or both liable. This statutory provision established that an agent's liability did not necessarily exclude the principal's liability. Instead, both could be held accountable depending on the nature of the agent's obligations and the contractual arrangements between the parties. However, s. 186 of the CA should not be extended to impose liability on an agent who merely carries out delegated duties under the principal's contract without any independent contractual obligation to the third party.
CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Hotel management agreement - Action against management company and its agent - Failure to pay local taxes on behalf of hotel - Unpaid tourism tax and penalties - Whether management company and its agent could be held jointly and severally liable together - Whether there was contractual relationship between hotel and agent - Whether there was basis to impose liability on agent - Whether management company expressly responsible for payment of local taxes on behalf of hotel - Whether merely crediting tourism tax into hotel's operational account absolved management company's liability
- For the appellants - Jason Tze-Xi Nathan; M/s Chee Siah Ke Kee & Partners
- For the respondent - H.R. Dipendra; M/s Ramesh Dipendra Jeremiah Law
|
CLJ 2026 Volume 3 (Part 2)
(i) Within a licenced manufacturing warehouse ('LMW') regulatory framework, the nature of a transaction, whether it is an export sale or a local sale, is determined strictly by mandatory documentary evidence and adherence to established regulatory procedures rather than the mere physical movement or intent of the goods; (ii) Under s. 65A(3)(b) of the Customs Act 1967, import duty is automatically exigible on all goods released from an LMW. Tax exemption is a conditional privilege, not a right. Therefore, any breach of licensing conditions renders the goods liable to tax by operation of law.
Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia & Anor v. Ha Pack Industry Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2026] 3 CLJ 163 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CUSTOMS & EXCISE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Minister of Finance and Director General of Customs - Licenced manufacturing warehouse - Breach of licence conditions - Whether decision to impose import duties and goods and services tax irrational or ultra vires - Whether refusal to grant full remission of duties lawful exercise of discretion - Customs Act 1967, ss. 14A & 65A(3)(b)
CUSTOMS & EXCISE: Duty - Exemption - Licenced manufacturing warehouse ('LMW') - Drop shipment deliveries - Goods delivered to local trading company for onward delivery to other LMWs - Whether transactions constituted 'export sales' or 'local sales' - Failure to comply with mandatory documentary requirements under Perintah Tetap Kastam Bil. 27 - Usage of Customs Form 9 instead of Borang GPB-1 - Effect of non-compliance - Whether tax liability arose automatically upon breach of conditions - Customs Act 1967, s. 65A(3)(b)
Lim Chong Fong JCA
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA
(Civil Appeal No: P-01(A)-422-06-2024)
- For the appellant - Aliza Jamaluddin & Amirul Hisyam Azedi Noor; SFCs
- For the respondents - Cheong Yew Sheng; M/s BC Teh & Yeoh
(Civil Appeal No: P-01(A)-423-06-2024)
- For the appellant - Cheong Yew Sheng; M/s BC Teh & Yeoh
- For the respondents - Aliza Jamaluddin & Amirul Hisyam Azedi Noor; SFCs
Professional misconduct under the Legal Profession Act 1976 requires proof of personal culpability. A partner in a legal firm cannot be found guilty of misconduct merely based on vicarious liability for the acts of another partner or staff member. While partners may share civil liability arising from partnership principles, it would be unreasonable to equate such liability with disciplinary guilt.
Lim Kien Huat v. Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Ors [2026] 3 CLJ 186 [CA]
LEGAL PROFESSION
LEGAL PROFESSION: Professional discipline - Misconduct - Appeal against decision of Disciplinary Board ('DB') - Partner of legal firm found to have committed professional misconduct due to act of legal associate - Whether High Court erred in upholding DB's decision - Whether appellate interference warranted - Whether personal culpability on part of partner ought to be proven - Applicable standard of proof for establishing professional misconduct - Whether beyond reasonable doubt
Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JCA
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Evrol Mariette Peters JCA
- Appellant - In Person
- For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Cyndi Chow Li Kian, Chan Wei Yang & Hang Qiu Min; M/s Josephine, LK Chow & Co
- For the 4th respondent - Chong Joo Tian; M/s JT Chong Assocs
An application for leave of court under s. 16(1A) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1967, required when a hirer has paid more than 75% of the vehicle's cash price, may be filed ex parte via originating summons. It is not mandatory for such an application to be inter partes, as the court's role is limited to verifying the satisfaction of statutory conditions, specifically the 75% payment threshold and the existence of two consecutive defaults, rather than adjudicating a final right to repossession.
Public Islamic Bank Bhd v. Edwin Cassian Nagappan [2026] 3 CLJ 197 [CA]
CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Agreement - Hire-purchase agreement - Breach - Bank hired vehicle to hirer - Hirer failed to pay instalments - Hirer had paid over 75% of vehicle's value - Bank obtained leave to proceed with repossession process - Whether application for leave under s. 16(1A) Hire-Purchase Act 1967 ought to be made inter partes - Whether ex parte application via originating summons permissible - Rules of Court 2012, O. 7 r. 2
Azizah Nawawi JCA
Collin Lawrence Sequerah JCA
Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA
- For the appellant - Tan Hong Kait & Divani Keruna Nithi; M/s Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis
- Respondent - Absent
Courts have a proactive duty to identify and isolate specific questions of law or facts that can be determined before a full trial to ensure judicial economy and efficiency. The exercise of powers under O. 33 r. 2 of the Rules of Court 2012, specifically directing parties to address the impact of prior superior court decisions, is a legitimate discharge of judicial function and does not constitute a 'predetermination' of the case. A judge's attempt to expedite proceedings or focus legal arguments on critical issues does not provide a basis for recusal. The mere fact that a judge identifies legal hurdles or establishes a specific sequence for hearings does not, by itself, meet the ‘real danger of bias’ threshold.
Elaine Gay Chow Song & Anor v. Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia & Ors [2026] 3 CLJ 209 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Recusal - Application for - Allegation of real danger of bias - High Court Judge directed preliminary issues of law to be addressed under O. 33 r. 2 of Rules of Court 2012 - Duty of court to ensure efficient and economical disposal of proceedings - Whether such direction amounted to pre-judgment of case - Whether court's attempt to identify and isolate central issues based on previous Federal Court decisions constituted bias - Whether litigant's dissatisfaction with case management directions ground for recusal
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Case management - Powers of court - Judicial control over proceedings - Court directing parties to file submissions on impact of earlier superior court rulings - Whether court entitled to identify crucial issues for determination before trial - Whether parties bound to comply with court's directions on sequence of hearings - Rules of Court 2012, O. 33 r. 2
Mohd Arief Emran Arifin J
- For the plaintiffs - Cheryl Kwan Chui Yi; M/s Rosley Zechariah
- For the 1st defendant - Lidia Fyrulliza Ishak & Muhammad Amir Basaruddin; Companies Commission of Malaysia
- For the 2nd & 3rd defendants - Fahri Azzat & Muhammad Firdaus; M/s Fahri, Azzat & Co
- For the 4th defendant - Kasthuri Krishnan; M/s Kasthuri Basir Shah & Partners
An employee's signature on a termination or retrenchment agreement does not constitute 'voluntary' acceptance if the circumstances demonstrate undue pressure or a lack of informed consent. Consent is vitiated where: (i) the agreement is presented on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis without alternatives or room for dialogue; (ii) the timeline for consideration is unreasonably short; (iii) the calculations for compensation are not explained; and (iv) there exists language barriers without adequate translation or explanation.
KNM Exotic Equipment Sdn Bhd v. Mohd Yunus Abdul Rahman & Ors [2026] 3 CLJ 234 [HC]
LABOUR LAW
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Termination - Retrenchment - Redundancy - Employer experiencing financial problems and executed redundancy exercise - Whether terminated employees voluntarily accepted termination notice and retrenchment compensation - Factors determining voluntariness - Employment Act 1955, s. 7
Anselm Charles Fernandis J
- For the appellant - Allen Miranda Emmanuel; M/s Suraiya Arif, Miranda & Tan
- For the respondents - Mathan Anandaram; M/s Mathan Anandaram & Co
(i) Sabitan bawah ss. 16(a)(B) dan 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 ('ASPRM') adalah selamat sekiranya pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan melalui keterangan saksi, rakaman perbualan, dan bukti fizikal (seperti wang bertanda) bahawa terdapat siri perbuatan meminta dan menerima suapan sebagai dorongan untuk menyalahgunakan kedudukan rasmi; (ii) Apabila pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan bahawa suapan telah diminta dan diperoleh, anggapan undang-undang bawah s. 50(1) ASPRM akan terpakai secara automatik. Beban pembuktian kemudiannya berpindah kepada tertuduh untuk menyangkal anggapan tersebut atas imbangan kebarangkalian; kegagalan berbuat demikian akan mengekalkan anggapan bahawa suapan itu diterima secara rasuah.
Mohamad Amin Shahul Hamid lwn. PP [2026] 3 CLJ 251 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Meminta dan memperoleh suapan - Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 ('ASPRM'), ss. 16(a)(B) & 17(a) - Tertuduh seorang Majistret dituduh meminta dan memperoleh suapan daripada pengadu yang menghadapi pertuduhan di hadapannya - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan inti pati pertuduhan - Sama ada anggapan bawah s. 50(1) ASPRM terpakai - Sama ada tertuduh berjaya menyangkal anggapan
- Bagi pihak plaintif - T/n R Nethaji Rayer & Co
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia
In the absence of an order made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under s. 59(1) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 assigning local limits, a Sessions Court in Sarawak has jurisdiction to hear any matter arising anywhere within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Accordingly, an offence committed in one administrative division, may be tried by a Sessions Court sitting in another division, provided both fall within the same High Court jurisdiction.
Tony Nara & Ors v. PP [2026] 3 CLJ 302 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Applicants convicted and sentenced to offence under s. 90(1) of Forests Ordinance, 2015 (Sarawak) (Cap 71) read together with s. 34 of Penal Code by Sessions Court at Mukah - Applicants claimed case ought to have been heard by Sessions Court at Sibu - Whether Sessions Court at Mukah had jurisdiction to try case alleged to have occurred within jurisdiction of Sibu Division - Whether application for revision ought to be allowed - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 323 - Subordinate Courts Act 1948, s. 59(1) & (2)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Defective charge - Applicants convicted and sentenced to offence under s. 90(1) of Forests Ordinance, 2015 (Sarawak) (Cap 71) read together with s. 34 of Penal Code by Sessions Court at Mukah - Charge stated 'Selangau District' belonged to 'Mukah Division' instead of 'Sibu Division' - Whether charge defective - Whether invalidated proceedings in Sessions Court - Whether applicants proved miscarriage of justice had been occasioned - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 156 & 419
- For the applicants/accused - Jacob LN Wong & Jessie Wong Siew Wee; M/s Nawi, Wong & Partners
- For the respondent - Mohamad Fuad Ahmad; DPP & Denny Kana Joshua; Forest Department Sarawak
Tertuduh yang dituduh bawah s. 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') dan mempunyai sekurang-kurangnya dua sabitan terdahulu untuk kesalahan yang sama, tertakluk pada hukuman dipertingkatkan bawah s. 39C(1) ADB. Oleh kerana hukuman bawah s. 39C(1) memperuntukkan pemenjaraan minimum lima tahun, maka sekatan jaminan bawah s. 41B(1)(b) ADB terpakai secara automatik, menjadikan kesalahan tersebut sebagai kesalahan yang tidak boleh dijamin.
Yong Wai Kee lwn. PP [2026] 3 CLJ 318 [HC]
PROSEDUR JENAYAH
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Jaminan - Permohonan jaminan - Kesalahan berulang - Tertuduh dituduh bawah s. 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Kesalahan memberikan diri sendiri dadah berbahaya tanpa kebenaran sah - Tertuduh pernah mempunyai sabitan terdahulu untuk kesalahan yang sama - Sama ada tertakluk pada hukuman dipertingkatkan bawah s. 39C(1) - Sama ada s. 41B(1)(b) terpakai - Sama ada jaminan boleh diberi
- Bagi pihak pemohon - V Sanjay Nathan & Pushan Qin Nathan; T/n Saibullah MV Nathan & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Mohammed Heikal Ismail; TPR
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
-
'THE FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS: BUILDING ON FIRM FOUNDATIONS' OPENING ADDRESS AT THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS BUILDING>+
[Read excerpt]
by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon* [2026] CLJU(A) xxvi
[2026] CLJU(A) xxvi
SINGAPORE
'THE FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS: BUILDING ON FIRM FOUNDATIONS'
OPENING ADDRESS AT THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS BUILDING>+
by
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*
Your Excellency Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, The President of the Republic of Singapore
Mr Masagos Zulkifli, The Honourable Minister for Social and Family Development
Mr Edwin Tong SC, The Honourable Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs
Mr Murali Pillai SC, The Honourable Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Transport
Mr Lucien Wong SC, Attorney-General
Justice Teh Hwee Hwee, Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts
My fellow Judges
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen
1. A very good morning. Thank you very much all for being with us today to witness the official opening of the "Octagon" as the home of the Family Justice Courts ("FJC"). I am particularly grateful to Your Excellency President Tharman for gracing this occasion and for your long-standing support for the work and mission of the Judiciary.
2. For half a century, the "Octagon" has stood as an iconic landmark in our judicial landscape.[1] As the home of the former Subordinate Courts and State Courts, housing the engine room that has powered much of the Judiciary's work, it has literally been the doorway through which countless individuals have gained access to our justice system.[2] Today, we gather to celebrate the refurbishment, repurposing and reopening of this historic building, and with it to launch the next phase of the FJC journey. Allow me to share three reflections this morning on the significance of this milestone with particular emphasis on our work in family justice.
. . .
-
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR WATER CONTAMINATION IN MALAYSIA: THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF TORT LAW ALONGSIDE STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT
[Read excerpt]
Muhammad Nazrul Abd Rani* [2026] CLJU(A) xxvii
[2026] CLJU(A) xxvii
MALAYSIA
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR WATER CONTAMINATION IN MALAYSIA:
THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF TORT LAW ALONGSIDE STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT
Muhammad Nazrul Abd Rani*
ABSTRACT
Water contamination continues to disrupt water supply and economic activity in Malaysia, yet the role of civil liability in addressing these harms remains underexplored. This article examines the continuing relevance of tort law alongside statutory environmental regulation. While the Environmental Quality Act 1974 and the Water Services Industry Act 2006 provide an extensive framework for licensing, monitoring and criminal enforcement, these mechanisms focus primarily on regulatory control and public enforcement. They do not fully compensate private losses or internalise the wider economic consequences of pollution incidents. The article argues that negligence, private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher remain essential yet underutilised tools for addressing water contamination. Through doctrinal analysis and case law, including SAJ Ranhill Sdn Bhd v. SWM Greentech Sdn Bhd & Anor, the analysis reveals that tort law can provide compensation, preventive relief and stronger deterrence where statutory enforcement alone is insufficient. The article concludes that a more active judicial engagement with civil liability would strengthen environmental accountability and enhance the overall effectiveness of Malaysian water governance.
. . .
-
LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE: A PRIVILEGE UNDER THREAT?
[Read excerpt]
by Habibah Omar* [2026] CLJU(A) xxviii
[2026] CLJU(A) xxviii
MALAYSIA
LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE: A PRIVILEGE UNDER THREAT?
by
Habibah Omar*
INTRODUCTION
In October 2023, a group of MACC[1] officers visited the lawyers' office of the former Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin.[2] They demanded a search and seizure of documents related to the offence under investigation against Muhyiddin.[3] The demand by the MACC officers was refused on the grounds of privilege. Recently, Albert Tei's lawyer was summoned by the MACC to appear in a criminal investigation and to produce documents related to a client's bribery case.[4] A notice under section 30 of the MACC Act 2009 ('MACC Act') was served.[5] When the lawyer refused to cooperate fully with the investigation, he was warned that his refusal to produce documents would constitute obstruction of a criminal inquiry.[6] These examples illustrate the challenges to the practice of legal professional privilege in recent years. Such challenges are evident not only in Malaysia but also worldwide. The Panama Papers incident in 2016 led to increased scrutiny of lawyers' roles in facilitating financial crimes and money laundering, prompting legislative efforts to impose reporting obligations on legal professionals.[7]
Indeed, the sophisticated manner in which criminal offences are committed today gives rise to two conflicting claims – a tension between competing principles of the public interest. On the one hand, a person must be able to obtain legal advice and assistance in total confidence; on the other hand, an equally crucial public interest justifies an investigating authority's access to material relevant to a criminal investigation. The investigating authority may have reasonable grounds to believe that a document has been created in the course of a criminal endeavour. Nevertheless, a lawyer, on behalf of his client, may vigorously dispute this assertion and claim privilege from disclosure.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| PU(A) 221/2023 |
Peraturan-Peraturan Perbadanan Insurans Deposit Malaysia (Sistem Levi Berbeza Berkenaan Dengan Anggota Penanggung Insurans) 2023 |
PU(A) 60/2026 |
Tahun taksiran 2026 dan tahun-tahun taksiran yang berikutnya |
Peraturan-peraturan 2, 3 dan 8; Jadual |
| PU(A) 221/2023 |
Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Levy Systems in Respect of Insurer Members) Regulations 2023 |
PU(A) 60/2026 |
Year of 2026 and subsequent assessment years |
Regulations 2, 3 and 8; Schedule |
| PU(A) 564/1996 |
Perintah Jalan-Jalan Persekutuan (Pengurusan Persendirian) (Pungutan Tol) (Lebuhraya Butterworth-Kulim) 1996 |
PU(A) 54/2026 |
6 Februari 2026 |
Perenggan 3 |
| PU(A) 564/1996 |
Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Butterworth�kulim Expressway) Order 1996 |
PU(A) 54/2026 |
6 February 2026 |
Paragraph 3 |
| AKTA 613 |
Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Aktiviti Terhad Dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 |
AKTA A1761 |
1 Mac 2026 [PU(B) 76/2026] |
Tajuk panjang; Seksyen 1, 3, 4, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28L, 29, 44, 44A, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 52A, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 66A, 66B, 66D, 66E, 66G, 66H, 66I, 66J, 76, 78, 83, 83A, 83B, 83C, 83D, 83E, 86 dan 92 |
Revoked
|
