CLJ Pulse #2/2026 (08 January 2026)

Issue #2/2026

08 January 2026

Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents.

New This Week

Case Spotlights
1. VINCENT MARCOS v. PP [2026] 1 CLJ 419
2. JUDICIAL QUOTES
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2026 Volume 1 (Part 2)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

VINCENT MARCOS v. PP [2026] 1 CLJ 419
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA; SUPANG LIAN JCA; M GUNALAN JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: Q-06A(M)-21-08]
10 SEPTEMBER 2025

Expert opinion evidence on a matter that falls within the common experience and knowledge of the trial judge is inadmissible or, if admitted, should be given no weight, as it risks usurping the judge's function to determine the ultimate issue of fact from the proved circumstances of the case.

CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Murder - Accused charged with murder of infant son - Whether prosecution proved accused caused death of deceased - Whether intention to murder established - Whether prima facie case established - Whether trial judge erred in accepting eyewitness testimony over expert opinion - Penal Code, s. 302

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against sentence and conviction - Accused charged with murder of infant son - Accused found guilty and sentenced to death - Whether prosecution proved accused caused death of deceased - Whether intention to murder established - Whether prima facie case established - Whether trial judge erred in accepting eyewitness testimony over expert opinion - Penal Code, s. 302

EVIDENCE: Expert evidence - Opinion evidence - Admissibility - Accused charged with murder of infant son - Accused found guilty and sentenced to death - Pathologist's opinion on proximate cause of injury - Whether expert opinion admissible - Whether trial judge erred in accepting eyewitness testimony over expert opinion - Evidence Act 1950, s. 45(1)

EVIDENCE: Eyewitness - Credibility - Accused charged with murder of infant son - Accused found guilty and sentenced to death - Assessment and weight to be attached to eyewitness testimony - Whether trial judge erred in accepting eyewitness testimony over expert opinion - Evidence Act 1950, s. 45(1)

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“Hence, it is very clear that in order for the notice to be served in the manner prescribed in s. 431 of the NLC, it must be in writing, for the act of serving the notice by delivering, leaving, posting, or substituted service in mode envisaged in s. 432 of the NLC can only be done through a document.”

“An administrative decision is not operative until proper notice is given to the person affected. Public authorities must act reasonably and fairly, which includes communicating their decisions effectively so that the persons affected can exercise their legal rights. Where the statute required notice to be served, failure to communicate in accordance with the statutory procedure rendered the decision ineffective and unenforceable. Effective communication is essential to give the affected party notice and an opportunity to comply with, challenge, or act upon the decision.” - Per Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera FCJ in Lee Kean Choon v. Khoo San & Ors [2025] CLJU 3371

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2025] CLJU 184	NG ZE XUAN v. TAN SING HOW & ORS 1. Republication of a defamatory notice on social media with large followings significantly broadened the audience exposed to the allegations. By disseminating defamatory statements to thousands of social media followers, the defendants amplified the harm to the plaintiff's reputation when the publication damaged both the plaintiff's professional standing and personal reputation among the general public. 2. For the defence of qualified privilege to succeed, it must be demonstrated that the occasion on which the communication is made arises from a duty or interest-whether legal, social, or moral-on the part of the publisher to make the communication, and a corresponding duty or interest on the part of the recipient to receive it. However, the privilege is defeated by malice or if the statements go beyond the scope of the duty or interest. It follows that the republication of the statements on social media to tens of thousands of followers lacked any legitimate purpose or duty. CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Independent contractor agreement - Return of commissions and bonuses - Return of social media accounts - Whether breach proved - Whether there were terms in agreement which allowed right to recover bonuses and commissions paid TORT: Defamation - Libel - Widespread publication on social media - Publication on WeChat, Zoom and Instagram - Statement imputing dishonesty,lack of professional ethics and portraying plaintiff as someone unworthy of trust or respect - Whether statements capable of lowering plaintiff's estimation in eyes of right-thinking members of society - Whether statements exposed plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule and social ostracism - Whether extensive publication increased harm caused to plaintiff and defamatory impact of statements - Whether defamatory statements caused significant harm to plaintiff's character, credibility, reputation as individual and businesswoman TORT: Defamation - Defences - Justification, fair comment and qualified privilege - Whether credible evidence tendered to justify defendant's statement - Whether statements made to fulfil legitimate duty - Whether malice evident from repeated publication of defamatory contents on social media - Whether defence demonstrated reciprocal duty or interest between defendant and recipients of defamatory statements - Whether defendant acted with malice by recklessly publishing statements without verifying truth TORT: Defamation - Damages - Wide circulation of defamatory statement in social media - Plaintiff a business leader and social media influencer - Emotional distress - Whether defendant's conduct warranted award of aggravated damages For the plaintiff - Bryan Ho Jiann Yau, Siew Kai Hwei & Kimberly Ng Wenn Mei; M/s Ho Partnership For the defendants - Pung Jenn Jiang; M/s Y.F. Chan & Partners
[2025] CLJU 185	TEO CHOON POH (ZHANG CHUNBAO) & ORS v. ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD Construction period means the period during which works is carried out by the developer for the purpose of constructing and completing the house in order to hand over vacant possession of the house to a buyer. In other words, the construction period must necessarily mean the period where construction works is carried out until completion followed by issuance of certificate of completion and compliance and handing over the keys of the properties to the buyers. Where a developer had represented to the buyers to bear and pay bank interest during construction stage under the developer's interest bearing scheme without specifying the exact duration of such undertaking, then such scheme covers the duration where construction works is carried out from the date of the sale and purchase agreement until delivery of vacant possession. CONTRACT: Breach - Representations - Additional benefits or incentives - Sale of property - Developer undertook to bear bank interest during construction stage - Developer's interest bearing scheme ('DIBS scheme') - Developer agreed to bear interest charged by financier in loan facility taken by buyer - Action by buyers against developer for breach DIBS scheme - Whether bank interest under DIBS scheme intended to cover construction period until delivery of vacant possession or for period of 48 months from date of signing of sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') - Whether contra proferentum rule applicable in favour of buyers - Whether DISB scheme covered from date of SPA until delivery of vacant possession CONTRACT: Building contract - Liquidated and ascertained damages ('LAD') - Delivery of vacant possession - Developer failed to deliver vacant possession within 48 months from date of sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') - Developer's interest bearing scheme ('DIBS scheme') - Whether there was nexus between developer's obligation to pay liquidated damages under SPA and bank interest under DSBS scheme - Whether DIBS scheme distinct from SPA - Whether purchasers entitled to claim for LAD For the plaintiffs - Wong Renn Xin; M/s K L Wong For the defendant - Wong Li-Wei; M/s Sanjay Mohan
[2025] CLJU 190	V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD v. LIM CHANG HUAT & ORS 1. Every member of a company has a right to attend any general meetings of the company, to speak at such meetings and to vote. The right to vote is one of a member's fundamental rights. It is indeed through his vote that his voice is heard in the company's affairs. Therefore, when the majority in control of a company refuses to convene an annual general meeting there is an oppressive conduct for the purposes of s. 346 of the Companies Act 2016. 2. Dividends are payments a company makes to its shareholders when it has a profit. A failure to declare dividends out of profits can amount to oppressive conduct and/or conduct in disregard of shareholders' interest. 3. Under s. 346 of the Companies Act 2016 each relief ranks equally. The Court has a wide unfettered discretion to grant reliefs and such relief can be one that is not prayed for by the plaintiff. A court determining an oppression claim is not bound by the reliefs the petitioner prefers or insists on, but is at liberty to fashion the remedy in accordance with the factual matrix of the case. The remedy granted would depend on the complaint and the circumstances prevailing at the time of the hearing, not at the start of the proceedings. COMPANY LAW: Members' rights - Oppression - Oppression of minority - Remedy - Failure to declare dividends out of profits - Failure to disclose information to financial affairs of company - Whether amounted to oppression - Whether court had discretion to grant relief not prayed for For the plaintiffs - S. Sivaneindiren, Bong Lep Siong, Joycelyn Teoh, Lim Jing Rui, Jayne Koe & Emilia Ting & M/s Cheah Teh & Su Bagi pihak defendan - Sng Eu Kim; M/s Sulaiman & Taye, Kenneth Gomes; M/s Sabarudin Othman & Ho
[2025] CLJU 187	PP lwn. ZULASMADI IBRAHIM 1. Setelah perakam gambar-gambar di tempat kejadian memberikan keterangan bersama-sama dengan pegawai yang mempunyai milikan atas gambar-gambar, CDR dan juga sijil perakuan di bawah s. 90A Akta Keterangan 1950, maka gambar-gambar yang ditandakan sebagai ID boleh diterima pakai sebagai keterangan. 2. Adalah tidak munasabah untuk mana-mana orang yang berada di dalam kereta untuk tidak menyedari kehadiran bungkusan-bungkusan dalah hitam besar yang berisi dadah berbahaya yang diletakkan dalam keadaan terbuka di bahagian belakang kereta. Justeru, pembelaan tertuduh bahawa dia tidak menyedari kewujudan bungkusan-bungkusan tersebut dalah satu penafian semata-mata. 3. Berat dadah terlibat merupakan satu faktor utama dalam penentuan sama ada wajar hukuman mati dijatuhkan atau tidak. Apabila berat dadah yang dirampas adalah beratus kali ganda lebih daripada berat minima anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah s. 37(da)(vi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, maka hukuman mati yang berbentuk deteren wajar dijatuhkan terhadap tertuduh agar menjadi pengajaran kepada tertuduh sendiri dan juga masyarakat secara umum supaya tidak terlibat dengan sebarang aktivit penyalahgunaan dadah. KETERANGAN: Ekshibit - Penerimaan masuk - Gambar-gambar ditandakan sebagai ID - Pegawai penyiasat mengemukakan CDR, gambar dan sijil perakuan di bawah s. 90A Akta Keterangan 1950 - Sama ada perakam gambar memberikan keterangan - Sama ada gambar-gambar wajar diterima sebagai keterangan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Dadah dijumpai di dalam kereta yang dibawa tertuduh - Tertuduh mendakwa hanya memandu kereta untuk tujuan pandu uji - Sama ada versi pembelaan suatu rekaan semata-mata PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Hukuman mati - Kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Kepentingan awam - Dadah hampir 850 kali ganda daripada berat minima anggapan pengedaran - Sama ada hukuman penjara seumur hidup sesuai - Sama ada tindakan tertuduh menimbulkan kemarahan masyarakat - Sama ada hukuman berbentuk deteren wajar dijatuhkan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Dadah dijumpai di dalam kereta yang dibawa tertuduh - Dadah ditemui di bahagian belakang kereta dalam keadaan yang banyak - Tertuduh dalam keadaan ketakutan dan tergamam semasa serbuan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan serta pengetahuan ke atas dadah - Sama ada inferen bahawa tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah boleh dibuat - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 37(da)(vi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai Bagi pihak plaintiff - Noor Azrul Abdul Rahman, Mohd Rizal Fadzil Bagi pihak defendan - B Murthy; T/n B Murthy & Co
[2025] CLJU 224	NAILI HOLDINGS SDN BHD lwn. SABELLA HOLDINGS SDN BHD Suatu reka bentuk hanya boleh didaftarkan sebagai reka bentuk perindustrian di bawah s. 12 Akta Reka Bentuk Perindustrian 1996 ('Akta RBP') jika ia memuaskan dua syarat iaitu reka bentuk tersebut merupakan satu reka bentuk perindustrian dan adalah baru atau novel. Setelah pendaftran berjaya, plaintif mempunyai hak di sisi undang-undang terhadap reka bentuk perindustrian itu sebagai pemilik berdaftar, termasuklah hak ekslusif terhadapnya dan perlindungan reka bentuk yang terakru kepada plaintif. Defendan yang mempertikaikan pendaftaran reka bentuk perindustrian dan seterusnya berhasrat untuk membatalkan reka bentuk perindustrian milik plaintif tersebut hendaklah menunjukkan bahawa Pendaftar Reka Bentuk Perindustrian telah terkhilaf dalam pendaftaran reka bentuk perindustriam itu kerana tidak mematuhi kehendak Akta RBP. HARTA INTELEKTUAL: Pembatalan - Reka bentuk perindustrian - Rekaan batik Coral Orchid - Sama ada rekaan batik plaintif didaftarkan dengan sumpurna dan sah - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai hak-hak eksflusif seperti yang ditetapkan di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Reka Bentuk Perindustrian 1999 dan Akta Reka Bentuk Perindustrian 1996 - Sama ada reka bentuk perindustrian plaintif mempunyai ciri-ciri yang biasa digunakan di dalam pasaran batik - Sama ada defendan melakukan pelanggaran hak eksklusif plaintif Bagi pihak plaintif - Adnan Seman @ Abdullah; T/n Adnan Sharida & Associates Bagi pihak defendan - Azmer Md Saad, Aziah Yahaya & Nur Zalika Kashfi; T/n Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli

CLJ 2026 Volume 1 (Part 2)

(i) Section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act 1972 ('AFA') imposes a mandatory requirement that an accused soldier, whose charge is to be tried by a Court-Martial, shall be remanded for the trial. This requirement is reinforced by the need for strict compliance with laws concerning military discipline and is further supported by r. 16(1) of the Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 ('AFRP'), which empowers the authority to place the accused under close arrest pending trial unless otherwise directed; (ii) There is no legal necessity under s. 96(3) of the AFA for the authority to issue an express remand order for detention pending trial by a Court-Martial. The unambiguous wording of the provision itself authorises or mandates the remand.
Muhammad Maliki Abdul Halim v. Leftenan Kolonel Shaifullizan Abdul Aziz (Pegawai Memerintah Batalion Ke-5 Rejimen Renjer Diraja) & Ors And Another Appeal [2026] 1 CLJ 187 [FC]

ARMED FORCES

ARMED FORCES: Court-Martial - Detention - Soldier's urine tested positive for drugs - Detention of soldier by military authorities pending investigation and trial before Court-Martial - Whether detention lawful - Whether express remand order required - Armed Forces Act 1972, ss. 51 & 96(3) - Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, rr. 13, 14 & 16(1)

Wan Ahmad Farid Salleh CJ
Nordin Hassan FCJ
Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera FCJ

For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Low Wei Loke, Shaharuddin Mohamed & Nur Shafika Mustaffa; M/s Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz
For the respondents - Nur Ezdiani Roleb, Siti Norashikin Hassanor & Wan Nur Muhammad Ehsan Alauddin; AG's Chambers

The statutory Form 75 under s. 514(1) of the Companies Act 2016, filed by a liquidator, is an account of the liquidator's receipts and payments of money and a statement of the cash position in the winding-up company. Form 75 would not reveal the indebtedness as it is not a full set of accounts reflecting the fixed and current assets and liabilities of the winding-up company. The best evidence to prove indebtedness is the certificate of indebtedness.
Golden Rock Sdn Bhd v. Mayban Finance Bhd [2026] 1 CLJ 208 [CA]

LAND LAW

LAND LAW: Foreclosure proceedings - Order for sale - Borrower defaulted in credit facility and company wound-up - Whether debts owing fully settled - Statutory Form 75 showing surplus balance sum - Whether Form 75 full statement of account - Whether Form 75 account of liquidator's receipts and payments of money and statement of cash-position in winding-up company - Whether certificate of indebtedness conclusive proof of indebtedness - Whether reliance on statutory Form 75 misconstrued - Companies Act 2016, s. 514(1)

Mariana Yahya JCA
Choo Kah Sing JCA
Faizah Jamaludin JCA

For the appellant - T Gunaseelan, Keshvinjeet Singh & Kumaradevan Rajadevan; M/s Gunaseelan & Assocs
For the respondent - Hoi Jack S'ng & Tiffany Low Jia Qi; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

(i) Pertuduhan bawah s. 408 Kanun Keseksaan, iaitu pecah amanah jenayah, hanya boleh dibuktikan jika tertuduh masih lagi pekerja/ejen pihak yang didakwa diamanahkan harta, pada tarikh kesalahan itu dikatakan berlaku. Jika tertuduh sudah meletak jawatan sebelum tarikh tersebut bahkan tidak lagi menerima gaji, hubungan pekerja/ejen, iaitu asas yang membentuk amanah, tidak wujud; (ii) Jika wang yang diterima oleh tertuduh telah dibayar oleh pelanggan firma guaman baharu (yang diwakili oleh tertuduh) seperti yang tertera dalam kontrak dan resit rasmi yang ditandatangani oleh pelanggan, wang tersebut bukan harta atau kepunyaan firma guaman lama (pihak yang didakwa dipecah amanah).
Muhammad Hafiz Ab Rashid lwn. PP [2026] 1 CLJ 216 [CA]

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Pecah amanah - Peguam syariah dituduh secara curang mengambil wang pelanggan untuk kepentingan peribadi - Dakwaan pelanggan bahawa peguam syariah dilantik dengan kepercayaan dia masih bertindak bagi pihak firma guaman lama - Wakalah dan resit bayaran yang diterima oleh pelanggan tertera nama firma guaman baharu - Sama ada peguam syariah bertindak sebagai ejen firma guaman lama - Sama ada telah meletak jawatan di firma guaman lama semasa memeterai wakalah pelantikan peguam syariah - Sama ada wang yang dibayar milik firma guaman baharu - Sama ada penerimaan wang oleh firma guaman baharu, melalui peguam syariah, sah - Sama ada elemen-elemen pecah amanah berjaya dibuktikan - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 408

Hashim Hamzah HMR
Azman Abdullah HMR
Azmi Ariffin HMR

Bagi pihak perayu - Haniff Khatri & Nurul Huda Razali; T/n Haniff Khatri
Bagi pihak responden - Zander Lim Wai Keong; TPR

(i) At the time of the filing of an originating summons, failure to obtain the prior sanction from the Director General of Insolvency goes to the issue of locus standi of the appellant to commence and prosecute that claim; (ii) The fact that a preliminary objection has been canvassed before the High Court and the originating summons is dismissed on the merits does not mean that the preliminary objection could not be raised again in the present appeal, as the failure to comply with the provisions went to the standing of the appellant to bring the originating summons before the courts.
Ong Yew Teik v. Yee Teck Fah [2026] 1 CLJ 253 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Appeal - Preliminary objection - Whether preliminary objection canvassed before High Court - Whether could be raised again in appeal stage - Inclusion of impugned documents in record of appeal - Whether basis for dismissing appeal - Whether there was failure to obtain sanction of Director General of Insolvency at time of filing of originating summons

Mariana Yahya JCA
Hashim Hamzah JCA
Ismail Brahim JCA

For the appellant - Raymond Mah Mun Kitt, Agalya J Munusamy & Carolyn Ng; M/s Mah Weng Kwai & Assocs
For the respondent - Yee Teck Fah & Yee Mi Kenn; M/s Yee Teck Fah & Co

A land forfeiture effected by a land office is invalid and gravely unjust when the landowner's non-compliance with a notice of arrears was directly caused by the same land office's prior erroneous advice or misrepresentation regarding the non-existence or overlapping nature of the land, especially when the land office also failed in its duty to correctly amend the land's technical plan to reflect its true existence. Consequently, the land office cannot rely on the non-compliance or the time limit for annulment to defend the forfeiture. Furthermore, a valid forfeiture cannot be used as a 'backdoor means' to compulsorily acquire the land for public purpose; such acquisition must comply with the specific statutory procedures prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.
Pentadbir Pejabat Daerah Dan Tanah Petaling v. S.E.A Housing Corporation Sdn Bhd [2026] 1 CLJ 262 [CA]

LAND LAW | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LAND LAW: Forfeiture - Forfeiture order - Discovery of ownership of another plot of land - Information came to light when owner received arrears notice - Land office informed owner that plot did not exist and overlapped with another plot of land - Land office informed owner that arrears notice was incorrect and could be ignored - Later discovery that plot of land did exist - Plot of land forfeited for public purpose due to owner's failure to pay and settle arrears of quit rent - Whether forfeiture valid - Whether statutory procedures for forfeiture under Land Acquisition Act 1960 complied with - National Land Code, ss. 97,100 & 130

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to property - Landholding - Forfeiture of landholding - Discovery of ownership of another plot of land - Information came to light when owner received arrears notice - Land office informed owner that plot did not exist and overlapped with another plot of land - Land office informed owner that arrears notice was incorrect and could be ignored - Later discovery that plot of land did exist - Plot of land forfeited for public purpose due to owner's failure to pay and settle arrears of quit rent - Whether forfeiture valid - Whether right to property infringed - Federal Constitution, art. 13(1)

Mohd Nazlan Ghazali JCA
Azimah Omar JCA
Faizah Jamaludin JCA

For the appellant - Nurul Izzah Abdul Mutalib, Mohd Abdul Hakim Mohd Ali & Siti Radziah Kamarudin; SLAs, Selangor
For the respondent - Lim Kien Huat & Bryan Ching Tze Yeow; M/s Lee & Lim

The legislative intent behind s. 10A of the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Sabah) (Cap 69) is to allow the Government to revoke an acquisition of land when the intended purpose has ceased to be viable or feasible, or if there is a change in policy from the original purpose of the acquisition. This provision also ensures fairness by restoring ownership of the land to the landowner instead of the Government having to pay compensation for land it no longer requires. Where the acquisition is validly revoked, the ownership will revert to its owner, and the question of compensation does not arise.
Rimdaya Sdn Bhd v. The Government Of The State Of Sabah & Anor [2026] 1 CLJ 278 [CA]

LAND LAW

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Revocation of acquisition - Claim for compensation - Revocation of acquired land and re-alienating it back to landowner - Whether process of vesting and transfer of ownership of acquired land completed in accordance with s. 3(3) of Land Acquisition Ordinance (Sabah) (Cap 69) ('LAO') - Whether s. 10A of LAO merely required one notification in Gazette to revoke acquisition - Whether revocation of acquisition under s. 10A of LAO constitutional - Whether there was infringement of art. 13(2) of Federal Constitution - Whether acquisition validly revoked - Whether landowner entitled to compensation

Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim JCA
Mohamed Zaini Mazlan JCA
Alwi Abdul Wahab JCA

For the appellant - Michael Denis Tan & Wan Kher Ching; M/s Michael Denis Tan & Co
For the respondent - Mohd Saifurrazee Mohamed & Calvin Joy; Sabah State Attorney General's Chambers

(i) Under O. 53 r. 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012, an application for leave for judicial review must be made ex parte and must be supported by a statement and by affidavits verifying the facts relied on. If the Attorney General ('AG') or his representative appears at the ex parte hearing for leave, his presence is to assist the court at the leave stage and not as a party to judicial review proceedings. The fact that the AG happens to be the putative respondent does not convert an ex parte application into inter partes. It is not incumbent on the AG to file any affidavit in reply; (ii) It would be difficult to conclude that the AG's impugned decision in declining to initiate criminal proceedings is tainted with mala fide in the absence of any prima facie evidence, let alone compelling evidence, that there was mala fide on the part of the AG in exercising his prosecutorial discretion; (iii) The power to prosecute does not lie with the Inspector General ('IGP') as he is not the decision-maker. In such scenario, the IGP is wrongly named as a party in an application for leave to commence judicial review.
Shashi Kumar Shanmugam & Ors v. Ketua Polis Negara, Polis Diraja Malaysia & Anor [2026] 1 CLJ 291 [CA]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Legality of decisions of public authorities - Challenge against decision of Attorney General ('AG') declining to initiate criminal proceedings against preacher allegedly making seditious remarks - Whether evidence of wrongdoing by preacher could be extended to manner AG arrived at impugned decision - Whether there was prima facie evidence that impugned decision of AG tainted with mala fide - Whether there was appealable error which called for curial intervention.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Legality of decisions of public authorities - Challenge against decision of Attorney General ('AG') declining to initiate criminal proceedings against preacher allegedly making seditious remarks - Whether Inspector General ('IGP') wrongly named as party to application - Whether omission of IGP adversely affected appellants - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 2(4)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Proceedings - Challenge against decision of Attorney General ('AG') declining to initiate criminal proceedings against preacher allegedly making seditious remarks - AG appearing as putative respondent - Whether converted ex parte application into inter partes - Whether incumbent on AG to file affidavit in reply - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(2) & (3)

Hashim Hamzah JCA
Wong Kian Kheong JCA
Wan Ahmad Farid Salleh JCA

For the appellant - T Gunaseelan & Kumaradevan; M/s Gunaseelan & Assocs
For the respondent - Nur Idayu Amir, SFC & Imtiyaz Wizni Aufa Othman; FC

(i) The scheme of the Employment Act 1955 ('EA') as a whole is engineered with the view that the rights of the disadvantaged or weaker party in mind, meaning the employees, are to prevail over the economic might, strength and resources of the employer; (ii) The power conferred on the Labour Office in deciding disputes between an employer and an employee in respect of wages and any terms of contract must also include the power and jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil in order to determine in respect of the wages due, who is the real employer; (iii) While a literal definition of the phrase 'wages' in s. 2 of the EA provides that it is meant for work done in respect of his contract of service, there is evidence that the basic salary of the employees is a fixed component of their remuneration and this is not subject to reductions, especially taking into account circumstances, in this case, the movement control order caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, where harsh realities had befallen on the employees. The employees are entitled to the outstanding balance of their basic wages for the said period. Even if they had engaged in part time work elsewhere during the period of the claims, the final award due to the employees ought not to be reduced.
Sri Maju Sarata Ekspres Sdn Bhd v. Segar Munusamy & Ors [2026] 1 CLJ 306 [CA]

LABOUR LAW | WORDS & PHRASES

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Wages - Claim for balance of wages due and owing - Whether employees had voluntarily signed consent letters agreeing to wage reductions - Whether employer's action in implementing wage reductions lawful or justified - Whether employees entitled to outstanding balance of basic wages - Whether part-time employment undertaken by employees taken into account in determining quantum of final award - Employment Act 1955, ss. 24 & 69

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Wages - Claim for balance of wages due and owing - Whether employees employed by other entities - Whether fit and proper case for lifting of corporate veil - Whether Labour Office acted within spirit and jurisprudential ambit of Employment Act 1955

WORDS & PHRASES: 'wages' - Employment Act 1955 s. 2 - Definition - Whether meant for work done in contract of service - Whether basic salary fixed component of employees' remuneration - Whether subject to deductions - Whether employees entitled to outstanding balance of basic wages

Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA
Collin Lawrence Sequerah JCA
Faizah Jamaludin JCA

For the appellant - Skanda Yagasena, Robin Lim Fang Say & Chan Kai Min; M/s Chan & Assocs
For the respondent - Logaprieyan Arichandran, T Ellanggovan Thambiraju & Babu Raj Raja Gopal; M/s Ellan & Co

(i) A claim for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') based on an alleged delay in delivering vacant possession of stratified housing accommodation will be rendered unsustainable and time-barred where the claim is based on challenging a Controller of Housing's decision granting an extension of time to the developer, and that decision was made prior to the prospective effect of the Federal Court's ruling in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals; (ii) There is no prohibition contained in the National Land Code for a registered proprietor of land, which is freehold, to give a lease to a developer the same into housing accommodation subject to the requirements of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and its regulations.
Poey Yee Meng & Ors v. Tropika Istimewa Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [2026] 1 CLJ 321 [HC]

STRATA PROPERTY | LAND LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE

STRATA PROPERTY: Claim - Sale and purchase agreement - Delay in delivery of vacant possession - Claim by purchasers for liquidated ascertained damages - Extension of time granted by Controller of Housing - Purchase of leasehold stratified housing parcels in development project - Allegations that sale and purchase agreements in contravention of National Land Code and Strata Titles Act 1985 - Purchasers claimed to have been sold leases instead of freehold titles - Purchasers sought to either have titles converted to freehold status or to return parcels and recovery of full purchase price, interest, and damages - Whether challenge to extension of time must be by way of judicial review - Whether claim time-barred - Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals

LAND LAW: Lease - Leasehold - Sale of leasehold parcel - Parcels held on lease for more than three years - Registration as proprietors with strata titles - Whether in contravention of s. 225(2) of National Land Code

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Pleadings - Writ and statement of claim - Delay in delivery of vacant possession - Claim by purchasers for liquidated ascertained damages - Whether claim time-barred - Whether claim obviously unsustainable, frivolous or vexatious - Whether abuse of process of court - Whether ought to be struck out

Su Tiang Joo J

For the 1st defendant - Gregory Vinesh Das & Leah Marie Samuel; M/s Steven Thiru
For the 2nd defendant - Ho Ai Ting & Man Weng Keat; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
For the 3rd-9th, 12th & 13th defendants - Freddy Choy Kay Chun; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
For the 10th & 11th defendants - Koo Yin Soon; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
For the 14th defendant - Muhammad Azzam Zainal Abidin; SLA

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

BUILDING THE FUTURE - NAVIGATING THE SHIFTING FOUNDATIONS OF HOUSING LAW IN MALAYSIA* ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Amina Qistina Mohd Idris** [2026] CLJU(A) iii

LEMON LAW IN MALAYSIA: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF PORATHA CORPORATION SDN BHD v. FA WAGEN SDN BHD IN LIGHT OF BUDGET 2026 ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Mabel S Muttiah* [2026] CLJU(A) iv

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 871	Fees (Pengkalan Kubor Ferry) (Validation) Act 2025	17 October 2025	-	-
ACT 870	Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Act 2025	1 August 2025	-	-
ACT 869	Parliamentary Service Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 868	Malaysian Media Council Act 2025	14 June 2025 [PU(B) 222/2025]	-	-
ACT 867	Government Service Efficiency Commitment Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	-	-

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1781	Supply Act 2026	1 January 2026
ACT A1780	Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	ACT 317
ACT A1779	Atomic Energy Licensing (Amendment) Act 2025	1 December 2025 [PU(B) 425/2025] except ss 10, 15, 17, 18, 33 and 53	ACT 304
ACT A1778	Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties (Amendment) Act 2025	1 January 2026 [PU(B) 432/2025]	ACT 504
ACT A1777	Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	ACT 711

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 425/2025	Universiti Malaysia Perlis (Incorporation) (Relocation) Order 2025	15 December 2025	16 December 2025	ACT 30
PU(A) 424/2025	Local Speed Limit (Federal Roads) (West Malaysia) (Amendment) Order 2025	12 December 2025	15 December 2025	PU(A) 462/1991
PU(A) 423/2025	Tourism Tax (Rate of Tax) Order 2025	9 December 2025	15 December 2025	ACT 791
PU(A) 422/2025	Customs (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2025	4 December 2025	8 December 2025	PU(A) 397/2019
PU(A) 421/2025	Strategic Trade (Amendment) Regulations 2025	2 December 2025	3 December 2025	PU(A) 482/2010

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 482/2025	Period of Application For Planting Grant and Replanting Grant	31 December 2025	1 January 2026	PU(A) 234/1994
PU(B) 481/2025	Prescription of Approved Routes and Declaration of Immigration Control Posts, Landing Places, Airports and Points of Entry (Amendment) 2025	30 December 2025	31 December 2025	PU(B) 136/1993
PU(B) 480/2025	Determination of Spectrum Assignment Under Sections 10 and 174	30 December 2025	31 December 2025	ACT 588
PU(B) 479/2025	Variation of Determination of Spectrum Assignment Under Section 11	30 December 2025	31 December 2025	ACT 588
PU(B) 478/2025	Corrigendum	29 December 2025		PU(B) 634/1995

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 672	Akta Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Dan Pembersihan Awam 2007	AKTA A1771	1 Januari 2026 [PU(B) 470/2025]	Seksyen 2, 77A - 77C dan 108
ACT 672	Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007	ACT A1771	1 January 2026 [PU(B) 470/2025]	Sections 2, 77A - 77C and 108
ACT 461	Offenders Compulsory Attendance Act 1954 (Revised 1991)	ACT A1768	1 January 2026 [PU(B) 469/2025]	Section 5 and 8
ACT 504	Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993	ACT A1778	1 January 2026 [PU(B) 432/2025]	Sections 2, 9, 12, 12A, 13, 13D, 17, 24, 27, 27A, 28, 28C, 28D, 30, 31, 34A, 37, 37A, 37B, 38 and 40
ACT 438	Free Zones Act 1990	PU(B) 421/2025	28 November 2025	Second Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 206/2025	Customs (Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 3) Order 2025	PU(A) 398/2025	1 November 2025 to 31 October 2030
PU(A) 182/2022	Excise Duties (Langkawi) Order 2022	PU(A) 393/2025	1 November 2025
PU(A) 174/2022	Excise Duties (Pangkor) Order 2022	PU(A) 392/2025	1 November 2025
PU(A) 181/2022	Excise Duties (Tioman) Order 2022	PU(A) 391/2025	1 November 2025
PU(A) 183/2022	Excise Duties (Labuan) Order 2022	PU(A) 390/2025	1 November 2025

To unsubscribe click here