New This Week

• Case Spotlights

  1. PP v. TAN HOO ENG [2026] 9 CLJ 173

• Appeal Updates

  1. Appeal Updates

• Latest Cases

  1. Legal Network Series

  2. CLJ 2026 Volume 9 (Part 1)

• Articles

  1. CLJ Article(s)

  2. LNS Article(s)

• Legislation Highlights

  1. Principal Acts

  2. Amending Acts

  3. PU(A)

  4. PU(B)

  5. Legislation Alert

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

PP v. TAN HOO ENG [2026] 9 CLJ 173
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH JCA
NOORIN BADARUDDIN JCA
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: A-05-436-09-2024]
3 AUGUST 2026

EVIDENCE: Admissibility - Notes of evidence - High Court struck out criminal charges based exclusively on notes of evidence given by investigating officer in separate civil suit - Whether notes of evidence admissible - Whether threshold conditions and provisos under s. 33 of Evidence Act 1950 satisfied - Whether witness dead, untraceable or incapable of giving evidence - Whether proceedings between same parties - Whether adverse party had opportunity to cross-examine witness - Whether issues identical - Evidence Act 1950, s. 33(a), (b) & (c)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charges - Striking out - Application to strike out criminal charges at Sessions Court - Allegations of unfair, tainted and selective investigation amounting to abuse of court process - High Court allowed application based on evidence from separate civil suit - Whether High Court erred in setting aside all criminal charges - Whether notes of proceedings in civil trial barred from admission

APPEAL UPDATES

1. Muhammad Afiq Abdullah v. PP [2026] CLJU 1360 overruling the High Court case of PP lwn. Muhammad Afiq Abdullah [2025] CLJU 1007

2. PP lwn. Zaw Thin [2026] CLJU 1532 menolak kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Zaw Thin [2025] CLJU 1393

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

CLJ 2026 Volume 9 (Part 1)

(i) Under a sukuk al-ijarah structure where the originator transfers its entire beneficial interest in an asset to a special purpose vehicle (and subsequently to a sukuk trustee for the benefit of sukuk holders) while retaining legal title strictly as a bare trustee, any subsequent sale proceeds generated from the pre-sale of that asset belong exclusively to the sukuk holders as the beneficial owners. The bare trustee acquires no legal or beneficial right to the proceeds. Consequently, such proceeds cannot be treated as funds originating from or belonging to the bare trustee, nor can their application toward group debt redemption constitute advances or enforceable debts owing to the bare trustee; (ii) Financial statements are prepared based on the principle of economic substance over legal form in accordance with applicable accounting standards, where assets and transactions may not be derecognised if economic risks and rewards are retained. A 'true sale' for accounting purposes is distinct from a 'true sale' under strict law or Shariah principles. Accordingly, mere accounting entries reflecting inter-company advances or the retention of an asset on a company's balance sheet do not, by themselves, create, establish, or prove the existence of legally enforceable debts in the absence of an underlying legal entitlement or contractual obligation.
Universal Health Care (R&D) Sdn Bhd v. Ramli Md Saleh & Ors [2026] 9 CLJ 1 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) Under s. 101(5), read together with ss. 14(1)(e) and 101(3), of the National Land Code, the requirement to obtain the prior approval of the National Land Council ('Council') applies strictly to the policy and timing of undertaking a rent revision, not to the specific quantum or final rent rates. Determining the actual rates of rent falls squarely within the statutory power and discretion of the State Authority. The Council's function is advisory and policy-driven, not to scrutinise or dictate rent figures; (ii) Retrospective subsidiary legislation is lawful and valid where it is purely a corrective exercise designed to give effect to the clear, original intention of the State Authority.
Berjaya Hills Resorts Bhd v. Pengarah Negeri Pejabat Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Pahang & Other Appeals [2026] 9 CLJ 107 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

(i) The lawful service of an active, valid ex parte Mareva injunction upon a bank for its intended purpose of freezing funds is legally protected and cannot constitute an actionable claim for defamation or libel; such execution is strictly authorised by s. 7(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and shielded by the statutory immunity under s. 14(2), which dynamically prevails over other written laws via s. 4; (ii) A highly contentious counterclaim arising from an action commenced by way of a writ cannot be summarily disposed of through a 'trial by affidavits'. Under ss. 59 and 60(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 and O. 38 r. 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, all material facts must be proved by direct oral evidence examined in open court to preserve the trial judge's fundamental audio-visual advantage in assessing witness demeanour and testing credibility through cross-examination; (iii) An independent tortious counterclaim for unliquidated damages completely lacks the requisite 'nature and quality' to serve as an equitable set-off or defence against a summary judgment derived from a distinct, professional relationship, and any such cross-crediting can only be validly executed by the court if it is explicitly grounded upon a legally recorded consent order between the parties.
Lim Koo Tiek v. Tan Bak Lee & Another Appeal [2026] 9 CLJ 122 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Under s. 64 of the Contracts Act 1950, while a digital asset or cryptocurrency is not legal tender and a debtor cannot unilaterally compel its acceptance to discharge a monetary debt, it may validly constitute alternative satisfaction (constituting accord and satisfaction) where the creditor voluntarily agrees - either expressly or impliedly through objective subsequent conduct - to accept it in full discharge of the obligation. Once such an accord is established on a balance of probabilities, subsequent market volatility neither deprives the digital asset of legal value nor invalidates the settlement, as a court will not reprice an agreed substitute asset based on subsequent fluctuations in its market value. Consequently, the creditor's acceptance and retention of the asset extinguishes the underlying monetary debt, precluding any concurrent claim for the original cash sum and thereby preventing an impermissible double recovery.
Ong Seow Lee v. Lee Ee Foong [2026] 9 CLJ 139 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Liability for maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions is not merely personal to a defaulting proprietor, but constitutes a continuing statutory burden which follows the parcel notwithstanding any subsequent change in ownership. However, where the title has been acquired pursuant to a court-sanctioned sale, the purchaser does not fall within the meaning of a 'successor in title' for the purposes of ss. 60(4) and 61(4) of the Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA'). The legislative objective underlying ss. 60(4) and 61(4) of the SMA is to prevent a defaulting proprietor from escaping liability through the expedient of a voluntary transfer. A purchaser at a judicial sale participates in a process conducted under judicial authority and is entitled to proceed on the footing that the sale is transparent, final, and subject only to encumbrances expressly preserved by law or disclosed in the conditions of sale. To saddle such a purchaser with undisclosed historical liabilities incurred by a previous proprietor, absent clear statutory language to that effect, would not merely visit hardship upon the individual purchaser, but would undermine the certainty, finality, and commercial reliability which court-sanctioned sales are intended to achieve.
Perbadanan Pengurusan Megan Avenue 1 v. Harjinder Singh Kuldip Singh [2026] 9 CLJ 157 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

ARTICLES

CLJ Article(s)

1. CAN A JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY OF A MIXED STRATIFIED DEVELOPMENT, COMPRISING OF RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL COMPONENTS, ESTABLISH SEPARATE MAINTENANCE FUNDS AND SINKING FUNDS, PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Kevin De Rozario* [2026] 9 CLJ(A) i

[2026] 9 CLJ(A) i

MALAYSIA

---

CAN A JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY OF A MIXED STRATIFIED DEVELOPMENT, COMPRISING OF RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL COMPONENTS, ESTABLISH SEPARATE MAINTENANCE FUNDS AND SINKING FUNDS, PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

by
Kevin De Rozario*

Introduction

The multi-storey strata living dates back to the introduction of the Strata Titles Act 1985. As development progressed, particularly in urban cities, complex mixed stratified developments became a prominent feature. However, mixed developments have its own challenges when complaints and conflicts arise from residential and commercial parcel owners that share one single development area. Some of the complaints from owners of both schemes are that:

(i) mall facilities generate higher maintenance cost;

(ii) commercial areas require different cleaning, security, and mechanical services;

(iii) residential owners subsidise commercial operations; and

(iv) commercial proprietors bear costs from facilities predominantly enjoyed by residents.

Because of these reasons, it is understandable that a separate management and sinking funds are created. Be that as it may, the laws regulating joint management bodies ('JMB') are strict and the courts' primary function is to interpret these laws in accordance with the objectives and the preamble of the Strata Management Act 2013 ('Act').

. . .

* Senior Litigation Partner, Messrs Khairuddin, Ngiam & Tan

LNS Article(s)

1. AFTER ROCKY: FROM ANIMAL WELFARE ON PAPER TO ACCOUNTABILITY IN PRACTICE
   WHY MALAYSIA NEEDS STRONGER ANIMAL PROTECTION, PREVENTION AND ENFORCEMENT ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Mabel S Muttiah^[i] Mavin Rajah^[ii] [2026] CLJU(A) xcvi

[2026] CLJU(A) xcvi

MALAYSIA

---

AFTER ROCKY: FROM ANIMAL WELFARE ON PAPER TO ACCOUNTABILITY IN PRACTICE

WHY MALAYSIA NEEDS STRONGER ANIMAL PROTECTION, PREVENTION AND ENFORCEMENT

by
Mabel S Muttiah^[i]
Mavin Rajah^[ii]

"The legality of an enforcement objective does not determine the legality of the method used to achieve it."

ABSTRACT

Rocky died amid a municipal dog-catching operation in Klang on 29 July 2026. On 20 August 2026, his owner and a person involved in the operation were separately charged under section 29(1)(e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 (Act 772). Both pleaded not guilty. Their cases remain pending, and nothing in this article expresses a view on criminal liability. The incident nevertheless exposes a legitimate law-reform question: what preventive, transparent and reviewable safeguards should apply whenever a public authority or its contractor captures, restrains, transports, detains or kills an animal?^[1]

Malaysia already has important protections: a statutory welfare duty, improvement notices, cruelty and unlawful-killing offences, seizure powers, investigation powers and a compounding regime. The weakness is not simply the absence of law. It is the absence of a sufficiently visible and graduated enforcement architecture. One that combines immediate remedial directions, emergency protection, serious-offence prosecution, custody records, evidence preservation, trained personnel, independent review and public reporting.^[2]

This article proposes targeted amendments to Act 772, not an entirely separate code. Its accompanying model Bill recognises sentience without conferring legal personality; expressly binds public authorities within constitutional and territorial limits; creates an emergency protection direction and a carefully limited Animal Welfare Offence Notice; requires trained humane capture, custody records, evidence preservation and independent review; and reserves death, serious injury and aggravated cruelty for investigation and prosecution. The proposed framework is preventive, proportionate and fair to both animals and accused persons.

. . .

[i] Advisor, Ms Anton & Chen; former Sessions Court judge.

[ii] Advocate and Solicitor (Malaya), Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn); Sole Proprietor, Rajah & Associates.

2. VOID, UNREGISTRABLE OR ENFORCEABLE IN EQUITY?
   THE LEGAL POSITION OF LOT LIDI PURCHASERS IN MALAYSIA ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Muhammad Luqman Hakim bin Roslan^[i] Roslan bin Hamid^[i] [2026] CLJU(A) xcvii

[2026] CLJU(A) xcvii

MALAYSIA

---

VOID, UNREGISTRABLE OR ENFORCEABLE IN EQUITY?
THE LEGAL POSITION OF LOT LIDI PURCHASERS IN MALAYSIA

by
Muhammad Luqman Hakim bin Roslan^[i]
Roslan bin Hamid^[i]

ABSTRACT

Lot lidi transactions present a recurring difficulty in Malaysian land law because the purchaser may have paid the purchase price, taken possession of an identified portion and entered into contractual or trust arrangements, yet remain outside the registered title. The problem is particularly acute where agricultural land is informally divided into smaller physical portions which cannot be registered in the purchasers' names under the National Land Code ('NLC'). While existing literature has largely examined registered ownership, land-use restrictions, purchaser behaviour, trust documentation and possible regularisation mechanisms, a further question arises once such a transaction has already occurred: does the failure to obtain registered ownership necessarily determine every legal consequence arising between the parties?

This article examines that question principally through the NLC and the decisions in Normilah Jamil lwn. Rosidin Selamat & Yang Lain, Siti Rumilah Tamyed & Ors v. Baini Kasan Mardi and West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang & Other Cases. It argues that four matters must be kept distinct: registered proprietorship, registrability of the purported parcel or interest, the existence of contractual or equitable rights, and the remedy corresponding to the right actually established. Normilah demonstrates that failure of the purchasers' proprietary claim did not eliminate the contractual remedy provided by their sale agreements. Siti Rumilah illustrates the limited operation of equity where the underlying 1980 agreement was first held to be preserved by section 205(5) of the NLC. West Coast Expressway further shows the vulnerability of informal ownership when it encounters compulsory acquisition and statutory land-use controls.

. . .

[i] Corresponding author; Advocate & Solicitor, Messrs Noryuslinda Yunus & Fariza Ismail, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia. Email: mlhbr97@gmail.com.

[ii] Sessions Court Judge, Butterworth, Penang, Malaysia.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert