| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #4/2026
22 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
PP lwn. FAIZOULL AHMAD [2026] 1 CLJ 913 Apabila bukti penting wujud secara muktamad yang boleh membuktikan kes pendakwaan tetapi tidak dikemukakan, tertuduh mesti diberi faedah keraguan. Kegagalan mengemukakan bukti utama, terutamanya apabila kewujudannya dibuktikan, boleh menjejaskan kes pendakwaan dan menyokong versi pembelaan. Ini juga boleh membentuk jurang pembuktian yang teruk, serta inferens buruk boleh dibuat terhadap pihak pendakwaan. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 409 - Pecah amanah jenayah - Sama ada tertuduh dengan curangnya melupuskan wang dan meluluskan pembayaran tanpa kelulusan Lembaga Pengarah FELDA ('Lembaga') - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan rakaman audio mesyuarat - Sama ada bukti kritikal berkaitan mesyuarat Lembaga - Sama ada kegagalan mengemukakan bukti utama menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Wujudnya dua set minit mesyuarat - Sama ada percanggahan menimbulkan keraguan besar tentang ketepatan dan kebolehpercayaan versi pendakwaan - Sama ada terdapat jurang pembuktian yang teruk - Sama ada inferens buruk harus dibuat terhadap pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan melampaui keraguan munasabah bahawa tertuduh bertindak secara tidak jujur - Sama ada terdapat salah arah serius undang-undang - Sama ada mahkamah wajar campur tangan APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 1 (Part 5) (i) There ought not to be any appellate intervention against a re-assessment of damages unless the court below has acted on a wrong principle of law, and the amount awarded is either so extremely high or low so as to make it an entirely erroneous assessment; (ii) In the assessment of a claim for damages arising from construction/demolition works, the court below ought to consider all evidence available to ensure that the contractors/engineers had taken all steps necessary to ensure that the foundation of the property and/or adjoining properties are not affected. In the absence of any preventive measures causing damages/loss to the owners of the properties affected, the reasonably foreseen consequences would follow, and liability to damages would attach. DAMAGES
DAMAGES: Assessment - Negligence - Claim for damages caused by construction works carried out by neighbour - Bungalow became unsafe for inhabitation - Apportionment of 30% liability against consultant engineer - Whether damages correctly classified as general damages - Whether measure of damages would be actual proof of loss of rental or genuine reasonable estimate of rental of property - Whether award of aggravated/exemplary damages justified - Whether quantum correctly assessed - Whether failure by owners to mitigate loss established - Whether there were overlapping claims - Whether assessment of repair and rectification works supported by evidence
Azman Abdullah JCA
While the court generally will not divide assets long-disposed of to genuine third parties, it will look behind transfers to related parties and order compensation if the timing and circumstances suggest the disposal was made in bad faith to prevent the assets from being divided as matrimonial property. FAMILY LAW
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Matrimonial property - Division - Wife sought husband to transfer 50% of his share or beneficial interest in house and shoplot or in alternative, to pay her compensation equivalent to half current market value of properties - Husband disposed of assets to related company - Timing of disposal of assets - Whether assets were matrimonial properties - Whether disposal done with mala fide to defeat wife's claim - Whether assets long-disposed of to third party could be divided - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76
S Nantha Balan JCA
A registered title of an individual over a property is held defeasible if the transfer of the property is made through fraudulent means, especially when it is proven that there was a conspiracy between certain parties to defraud the victim, ie, when the fraudulent parties had taken active steps to cause wrongful loss to the detriment of the victim by conspiring and fraudulently misrepresenting to the victim that he was signing documents to charge the property, when in actual fact it was to execute a transfer to another party. Even if the charge of the property is treated as a separate and distinct transaction, and the bank had acted bona fide, the bank charge over the property is also defeasible and ought to be set aside because the transfer and charge pertaining to the property were done concurrently and should be treated as the same fraudulent transaction. LAND LAW
LAND LAW: Charge - Security for loan - Fraud and conspiracy - Registered owner charged property to obtain bank loan - Defendants conspired and fraudulently misrepresented to owner that he was signing documents to charge property when in fact it was to transfer it absolutely to first defendant - Whether owner relied entirely on assurance of defendants that he would remain proprietor of property - Whether defendants took active steps to cause wrongful loss - Whether defendants committed fraud - Whether first defendant's title to property tainted and defeasible - Whether bank's charge over property set aside LAND LAW: Transfer of property - Validity - Fraud and conspiracy - Registered owner charged property to obtain bank loan - Defendants conspired and fraudulently misrepresented to owner that he was signing documents to charge property when in fact it was to transfer it absolutely to first defendant - Whether owner relied entirely on assurance of defendants that he would remain proprietor of property - Whether defendants took active steps to cause wrongful loss - Whether defendants committed fraud - Whether first defendant's title to property tainted and defeasible
S Nantha Balan JCA
(i) In a case regarding the court's power under s. 5(1)(a)(v) of the Registration and Enforcement of Judgments Acts 1958 ('REJA') to set aside the registration of a foreign judgment on the ground that the enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy in Malaysia, courts should take a restrictive approach in the application of public policy. The two bases for the REJA, as embodied in s. 3(2), are international comity and reciprocity between Malaysia and a 'reciprocating country' (defined in s. 2 of the REJA) as any country specified in the First Schedule to REJA (reciprocating country) with regard to any 'judgment' (defined widely in s. 2 of the REJA) given by a court in the reciprocating country. In view of this, Malaysian courts cannot question the merits and/or the basis of the judgment of the reciprocating country; (ii) Taking into consideration the nature of the foreign judgment, in this case, a monetary judgment based on contractual liability under agreements regarding victims of road traffic accidents and their recourse, a social legislation such as the Road Transport Act 1987 would support the enforcement of the foreign judgment in Malaysia, especially when its enforcement would not be contrary to public policy and there are no issues that can justify the setting aside of the registration. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Foreign judgments - Registration of Singapore judgment in Malaysia - Application to set aside - Whether enforcement of judgment contrary to public policy in Malaysia - Whether court should take restrictive approach in application of public policy - Whether international comity/reciprocity embodied in s. 3(2) of Registration and Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ought not to be undermined - Nature of judgment - Whether supported enforcement of judgment - Doctrine of stare decisis and res judicata- Applicability - Registration and Enforcement of Judgment Acts 1958, s. 5(1)(a)(v) CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Foreign judgments - Registration of Singapore judgment in Malaysia - Application to set aside - Nature of judgment - Whether monetary judgment based on contractual liability under agreements regarding victims of road traffic accidents and their recourse when there is no insurance coverage - Road Transport Act 1987 - Whether social legislation to be interpreted in favour of victims of motor vehicle accidents - Whether supported enforcement of Singapore judgment in Malaysia under Registration and Enforcement of Judgments Acts 1958 - Whether enforcement of registration of Singapore judgment contrary to public policy
Supang Lian JCA
(i) Once parties agree to place a document in Part A of the common agreed bundle of documents, under O. 34 r. 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2012, both the contents and the truth of the contents of that document are deemed to be proved. In the case at hand, the document placed in Part A is an agreement. The agreement is therefore binding on the parties. Placing a document in Part A is fatal to a party attempting to challenge the reality or legality of the transaction documented therein, unless the validity of the agreement for categorisation itself is successfully challenged; (ii) An agent who executes an agreement on behalf of a company/principal, and whose designation and authority are confirmed by documents placed in Part A of the common agreed bundle of documents, is deemed to possess both actual and apparent authority to bind the company/principal in that transaction; (iii) A vendor's solicitor does not owe a duty of care to a purchaser who is represented by their own separate solicitor. CIVIL PROCEDURE | CONTRACT | AGENCY | TORT | DAMAGES
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Case management - Pre-trial case management - Bundle of documents - Part A documents - Effect of placing documents in Part A of common agreed bundle of documents - Whether agreement on contents amounts to agreement on truth of contents - Whether parties bound by categorisation of documents - Whether validity of agreement could be challenged - Rules of Court 2012, O. 34 r. 2(2) CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Property transaction - Validity - Whether transaction was illegal moneylending disguised as sale and purchase agreement - Burden of proof - Whether burden of proving illegal moneylending discharged - Whether there was conspiracy to defraud through illegal moneylending transaction - Moneylenders Act 1951, s. 2 AGENCY: Agent - Authority of agent - Actual and apparent authority - General Manager executing sale and purchase agreement on behalf of company - Whether acting as agent of company - Whether agent had authority to bind principal TORT: Negligence - Professional negligence - Duty of care - Solicitor acted for vendor while purchaser represented by own solicitor - Whether vendor's solicitor owes duty of care to purchaser - Whether relationship of proximity exists - Whether vendor's solicitor liable for releasing funds to vendor's authorised representative DAMAGES: Measure of damages - Loss of prospective profit - Claim for loss of profit from proposed resale - Whether there was formal agreement with proposed purchaser - Whether claim sustainable - Whether prospective profit speculative S Nantha Balan JCA (Civil Appeal No: B-02(NCvC)(W)-103-01-2023)
(i) Where an interim injunction is later set aside, indicating it was wrongly granted, the party who obtained the injunction is liable to pay damages under the standard undertaking as to damages, unless there are special circumstances or inequitable conduct by the restrained party to warrant withholding enforcement; (ii) Aggravated and exemplary damages will generally not be awarded for losses resulting from a wrongful injunction in a private commercial dispute, even if the claimant suffered loss. CIVIL PROCEDURE | DAMAGES
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim injunction - Undertaking as to damages - Shareholder obtained interim injunctions against companies - Interim injunctions restrained companies from disposal of principal assets for approximately five years - Injunction later set aside - Whether subsequent setting aside of injunction amounted to finding that injunction was wrongly granted - Whether liability for damages engaged - Whether there were special circumstances warranting withholding of enforcement DAMAGES: Assessment - Loss of opportunity - Shareholder obtained interim injunctions against companies - Interim injunctions restrained companies from disposal of principal assets for approximately five years - Injunction later set aside - Loss of sale proceeds under letter of intent - Whether letter of intent enforceable - Whether sale would probably have been completed but for injunctions - Whether companies entitled to damages - How damages would be assessed - Whether shareholder's conduct in obtaining and maintaining injunctions warranted grant of punitive or aggravated damages
Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC
(i) A finding of guilt requires a proper inquiry to be held. The Disciplinary Committee ('DC') cannot make a 'default judgment' or recommendation of 'no cause' without considering the inquisitorial nature of the proceedings and the right of the parties to be heard before making an adverse finding or stopping the inquiry. Similarly, the Disciplinary Board ('DB') cannot make a finding of guilt without an inquiry having been held; (ii) Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal, and the standard of proof for misconduct must be beyond a reasonable doubt; (iii) The DB must provide written grounds, as mandatorily required by s. 103D(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, when rejecting the DC's findings. LEGAL PROFESSION
LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary Committee - Complaint by client against advocate and solicitor for fraudulent transfer of property - Hearing before Disciplinary Committee ('DC') fixed but adjourned from time to time due to complainant's non-appearance - DC decided not to proceed further with inquiry and recommended to Disciplinary Board ('DB') that no cause existed for disciplinary action - DB disagreed with DC's findings and recommendations - DB imposed on advocate and solicitors with punishment of fine of RM20,000 - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether advocate and solicitor accorded right to be heard - Whether alleged misconduct proven beyond reasonable doubt - Whether DB provided written grounds - Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 94(3) & 103D(1)
Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|