CASE SPOTLIGHTS
TAN LAY EAN v. KENNETH YOONG KEN CHINSON ST JAMES & ANOR [2025] 6 CLJ 244
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA; CHOO KAH SING JCA; FAIZAH JAMALUDIN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(A)-1522-09-2023]
3 APRIL 2025
(i) An advocate and solicitor's action of making a written complaint directly to a presiding judge of an ongoing litigation about the opponent litigant, which might prejudice and influence the mind of the presiding judge, ought to be frowned upon. It would amount to 'obstructing' the court in administering fair justice to litigants as well as breed an unhealthy practice in the legal profession. If there is any complaint against any action taken in a court case, the complaint ought to be made to the firm of solicitors representing a litigant; (ii) Although a right to be heard ought to be accorded to an advocate and solicitor before the Disciplinary Board ('DB') metes out its decision for an adverse punishment to be imposed on an advocate and solicitor, a mere breach of a right to be heard is in itself insufficient for the court to set aside an entire decision of a DB or overturn a court's decision when the breach is of no significance or is not serious such as to have impact on the outcome of the DB's final decision.
LEGAL PROFESSION: Advocates and solicitors - Professional discipline - Misconduct - Conduct unbefitting of advocate and solicitor which brought legal profession to disrepute - Act of writing to presiding judge - Complaints on conduct of opponent litigant - Whether act amounted to misconduct and unacceptable - Whether complaints would prejudice and influence mind of presiding judge - Whether would amount to obstructing court in administering fair justice to litigants - Whether there was breach of right to be heard - Whether breach impacted Disciplinary Board's final decision - Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 94(3) & 103E - Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, rr. 18 & 31
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Definition - 'that is likely to be adverse against an advocate and solicitor' - Whether same words used in pre and post s. 103D(4) of Legal Profession Act 1976 - Whether connoted same interpretation - Whether right to be heard ought to be accorded before Disciplinary Board meted out decision for adverse punishment to be imposed on advocate and solicitor
WORDS & PHRASES: 'that is likely to be adverse against an advocate and solicitor' - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 103D(4) - Whether same words used in pre and post s. 103D(4) of Legal Profession Act 1976 - Whether connoted same interpretation - Whether right to be heard ought to be accorded before Disciplinary Board meted out decision for adverse punishment to be imposed on advocate and solicitor T
APPEAL UPDATES
-
PP lwn. Mohd Noor Affendi Zauklfli [2025] CLJU 24 affirming the High Court case of PP lwn. Mohd Noor Affendi Zauklfli [Rayuan Jenayah No.: TA-42(R)(A)-1-02/2022, TA-42(R)(A)-2-02/2022, TA-42(R)(A)-3-02/2022, TA-42(R)(A)-4-02/2022, TA-42(R)(A)-5-02/2022 dan TA-42(R)(A)-6-02/2022]
-
Quaik Yong Lai & Ors v. PP [2024] CLJU 2695 affirming the High Court case of PP v. Quaik Yong Lai & Ors [Criminal Trial No. PA-45C-1-03/2017]
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2025] CLJU 22
|
TEE KIM HOCK v. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (PARTY INTERESTED)
1. The mere use of the word 'shall' under s. 38(5) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 does not necessarily mean that the requirements of the provisions are mandatory since s. 38(6) allows for an extension of time for the land administrator to make a land reference to the court.
2. Land reference proceedings stem from an objection to compensation arising from one's land being compulsorily acquired. Adequate compensation in land acquisition is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art 13(2) of the Federal Constitution, and any attempt to stifle that right with technical objections cannot be allowed to succeed.
LAND LAW: Acquisition of Land - Compensation - Interested party applied to strike out land reference - Reference was filed beyond time stipulated under s. 38(5) of Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Land reference was heard and decided - Rehearing - Extension of time to file Form O - Whether court has jurisdiction to hear land reference made beyond 6 months time period - Whether applicant was entitled for an extension of time to file Form O - Whether filing of Form O was within control of applicant - Whether applicant should suffer any injustice for land administrator's failure to file Form O within time stipulated - Whether any prejudice had been occasioned to interested party
- For the applicant - Brenda Chan & Seah Jay Shearn; M/s Meng Wai & Asociates
- For the respondent - Mohd Abdul Hakim Mohd Ali; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
- For Party Interested - Steven How & S Shahman; M/s Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah
|
|
[2025] CLJU 42
|
HOXINNIE & ANOR v. LUMI HOSPITALITY SDN BHD & ANOR
It is not contrary to law for parties to contractually agree to limit their remedies for breach of contract. The provision of remedies for breach of a sale and purchase agreement is asymmetrical between the vendor and the purchaser, recognising that the interests of the parties are different. The paramount consideration for the court is to give effect to the intention of the parties according to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
CONTRACT: Sale and purchase agreement - Breach - Damages - Balance purchase price not paid within required period - Vendor refused to give extension of time - Whether vendor was entitled to full purchase price for non-completion of sale and purchase agreement while still retaining beneficial interest in property - Whether claim in fact for specific performance - Whether vendor's interest is monetary - Whether subsequent conduct may set up an estoppel against a contrary interpretation of a contract - Whether vendor had contracted out remedy of specific performance
- For the plaintiffs - Leong Chee Weng & Naveen Sri Kantha; M/s Tuang, Chu & Co
- For the defendants - Justin Voon Tiam Yu & Caoline Lim Seah Le; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
|
|
[2025] CLJU 54
|
SECURE PLANTATIONS SDN BHD v. PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI PULAU PINANG & ORS
1. Where a registrar's caveat was entered on a land at the request of the police department for the purpose of investigation under s. 420 of the Penal Code and in the absence of any update as to the status of the investigation by the police, then there is no reason to maintain the registrar's caveat on the said land.
2. An application by a successful bidder to remove a private caveat on a piece of land should be refused when the ownership of the land is still in dispute and pending determination in the court. Issues on the ownership of the land and the issue of functus officio amount to bona fide serious issues to be tried as the same will finally determine the issue of ownership as well as the beneficial interest over the said land.
LAND LAW: Caveat - Registrar's caveat - Removal of - Application by successful bidder of land - Land was a subject matter of police investigation for an offence under s. 420 of Penal Code - Absence of update on status of police investigation - Whether there was any basis to maintain registrar's caveat
LAND LAW: Caveat - Private caveat - Removal of - Application by successful bidder of land - Land was a subject matter of a sale and purchase agreement which is in dispute in court - Existence of a pending suit for specific performance of sale and purchase agreement - Whether respondents have caveatable interest - Whether a successful bidder was an aggrieved person within meaning of s. 327 of National Land Code 1965 - Whether issues of ownership of land and functus officio amount to bona fide serious issues to be tried - Whether balance of justice favours removal of all caveats
- For the plaintiff - Ng Giap Seng; M/s Phee, Chen & Ung
- For the 1st respondent - Siti Hafiza Jaafar, SFC; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang
- For the 2nd respondent - Hoh Lee Ian; M/s Gan Teik Chee & Ho
|
|
[2023] CLJU 350
|
SYAH REZA ABD RAHMAN @ DRAHMAN & ANOR v. FALCON MAINTENANCE & TRAINING SDN BHD; BESTRICH STAR SDN BHD (APPELLANT)
In interpleader summons, the onus of proof is on the claimant to prove on a balance of probabilities that at the time of seizure by the court, the goods or other movable properties taken or intended to be taken belong to them. The claimant cannot claim for properties that belong to its director as the claimant is a separate legal entity from its director.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interpleader - Interpleader summons - Allegation that property seized by court bailiff pursuant to order of seizure and sale do not belong to execution debtor - Whether appellant had discharged burden to prove that property seized belongs to them - Whether appellant could claim for property for its director - Whether appellant was a separate legal entity from its directors - Rules of Court 2012, O. 17
- For the respondent/execution creditor - Leslie Linton & Janting Antalai; M/s Battenberg & Talma
- For the appellant - Zainuranisa Bani; M/s Shikh Rajjish & Partners Advocates
|
|
[2023] CLJU 351
|
YII TUE YIENG (f) v. LIM WAI KEONG
1. Courts are prepared to provide parties with the opportunity to regularise proceedings and to deal with the merits of the matter, rather than allowing technicalities to get in the way of substantive justice, especially when the adverse party was not prejudiced. It follows that leave can be granted to refer to the latest affidavit instead of the previous affidavit on the grounds that the latter is defective due to a missing statement on interpretation in the jurat provided such leave application was filed without delay and in the absence of prejudice to the other party.
2. A 'without prejudice' label may be lifted if no negotiations are taking place or where there has been a waiver of such privilege. The privilege, however, is not waived or lifted simply because a party files an affidavit in reply to an affidavit containing privileged communications if he objects to his opponent's evidence being admitted while presenting his own version of the negotiations. Conversely, the fact that a document is headed 'without prejudice' does not conclusively or automatically render it privileged from admission.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Striking out of certain paragraphs in divorce petition and reply to answer - Expunging matters relating to contents of communication based on 'without prejudice' - Whether 'without prejudice' communication may be lifted - Whether there was a transgression of 'without prejudice' rule - Whether paragraphs in petition were scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of court's process
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavits - Defective affidavit - Leave to disregard earlier affidavit and refer new affidavit - Omission to state on interpretation in jurat - New affidavit share same contents except for jurat - Interest of justice - Whether affidavit was defective - Whether irregularity was curable - Whether irregularities had prejudiced respondent - Whether rectification was done without delay - Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A, O. 2 r. 1, O. 41 rr. 3, 4
- For the petitioner - Brenda Chong; M/s Mustafa Kueh & Tambi
- For the respondent - Fiona Tin; M/s Yap Hoi Liong & Co
|
CLJ 2025 Volume 6 (Part 1)
(i) When an arrest is premised on a police report, and the police report shows no evidence that the plaintiff is engaged in detrimental activities, and that there is no reasonable and probable cause for the arrest, it would render the arrest unjustified and the detention unlawful; (ii) Due to competing needs in malicious prosecution, reasonable and probable cause and malice are separate elements which serve different purposes. The absence of reasonable and probable cause does not equate to the presence of malice.
Khairuddin Abu Hassan v. Wan Aedil Wan Abdullah & Ors And Another Appeal [2024] 6 CLJ 1 [CA]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | TORT
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Arrest - Unlawful detention - Whether there was basis for arrest - Arrest premised on police report - Whether police report showed plaintiff engaged in activity detrimental to Parliamentary democracy - Whether there was reasonable and probable cause - Whether arrest justified under ss. 124C and 24L of Penal Code
TORT: Unlawful detention - Arrest - Arrest premised on police report - Whether there was basis for arrest - Whether police report showed plaintiff engaged in activity detrimental to Parliamentary democracy - Whether there was reasonable and probable cause - Whether arrest justified under ss. 124C and 124L of Penal Code
TORT: Malicious prosecution - Elements - Whether absence of reasonable and probable cause equate to presence of malice - Whether prosecution actuated by malice or only to carry law into effect - Whether there were acts of oppression - Whether malice proved
See Mee Chun JCA
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA
(Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)(W)-692-09-2022)
- For the appellant - Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla & Nurul Huda Razali; M/s Haniff Khatri
- For the respondents - Nur Edziani Roleb & Siti Syakimah Ibrahim; SFCs & Mohd Ashraf Abd Hamid; FC
(Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)(W)-713-09-2022)
- For the respondents - Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla & Nurul Huda Razali; M/s Haniff Khatri
- For the appellant - Nur Edziani Roleb, Siti Syakimah Ibrahim SFCs & Mohd Ashraf Abd Hamid; FC
Jika seorang saksi kanak-kanak didapati boleh memahami sifat sumpah dan mempunyai kapasiti intelek yang mencukupi untuk mengikrarkan sumpah untuk bercakap benar semasa mengemukakan keterangan, maka saksi kanak-kanak tersebut boleh diambil keterangannya; sama seperti saksi yang berkelayakan memberikan keterangan menurut s. 118 Akta Keterangan 1950. Keterangan saksi kanak-kanak yang tidak memahami maksud sumpah, yang diambil walaupun bukan dengan mengangkat sumpah, masih boleh diterima jika saksi kanak-kanak yang masih mentah tersebut didapati mempunyai akal yang cukup untuk mewajarkan penerimaan keterangannya dan dia faham tentang kewajipan bercakap benar, dengan syarat, keterangan saksi kanak-kanak itu disokong dengan keterangan lain yang matan.
PP lwn. Kang Chang Heng [2024] 6 CLJ 31 [CA]
KETERANGAN | PROSEDUR SIVIL | PERKATAAN & ISTILAH
KETERANGAN: Maklumat yang membawa pada penemuan - Penerimaan masuk - Maklumat diperoleh daripada tertuduh menjurus pada penemuan barang-barang kes - Sama ada maklumat diberi secara sukarela - Sama ada menunjukkan pengetahuan tertuduh akan kewujudan barang-barang kes - Sama ada keterangan relevan untuk mengaitkan tertuduh dengan kejadian - Akta Keterangan 1950, ss. 8 & 27
KETERANGAN: Saksi - Saksi kanak-kanak - Penerimaan masuk keterangan - Sama ada saksi memahami sifat sumpah dan tahu kewajipan bercakap benar semasa memberi keterangan - Sama ada saksi melihat tertuduh dengan jelas - Sama ada saksi berjaya mengecam tertuduh secara positif - Sama ada percanggahan-percanggahan berhubung pengecaman tertuduh mewajarkan penolakan keterangan saksi secara keseluruhan - Akta Keterangan 1950, ss. 118 & 133A
KETERANGAN: Saksi - Penyataan saksi - Penyataan doktor yang merawat tertuduh selepas kejadian - Sama ada kecederaan-kecederaan menyokong fakta tertuduh terlibat dalam pelakuan jenayah yang dituduh - Sama ada terdapat keterangan sokongan - Sama ada inferens boleh dibuat bahawa tertuduh yang melakukan jenayah yang dituduh - Sama ada inferens menyokong kes pendakwaan
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Kekompetenan - Rayuan ke Mahkamah Persekutuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan - Sama ada satu 'keputusan' mengikut takrif dalam s. 3 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 - Sama ada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan melupuskan hak tertuduh dengan muktamad - Sama ada kebenaran rayuan bercanggah dengan niat Parlimen untuk mempercepatkan pelupusan bicara kes
PERKATAAN & ISTILAH: 'keputusan' - Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, s. 3 - Pengenalan takrif 'keputusan' melalui Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman (Pindaan) 1998 - Sama ada bertujuan mempercepatkan pelupusan bicara semua kes - Sama ada hanya merangkumi perintah atau penghakiman yang melupuskan hak pihak-pihak secara muktamad
Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali HMR
Azman Abdullah HMR
Wong Kian Kheong HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Dhiya Syazwani Izyan Mohd Akhir; TPR
- Bagi pihak responden - Lim Chin Huat, Lim Jye Kie & Lim Jye Lie; T/n Lim Chin Huat & Co
(i) For an indemnity-based personal accident insurance policy, the cause of action accrues upon the occurrence of the insured event, ie, the death or disablement due to accident. The limitation period for such a claim is six years from the date the cause of action accrued, as per s. 6 of the Limitation Act 1953; (ii) Section 7(3B) of the Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2019 does not apply to claims based on breach of contract, such as a claim against an insurer for failing to pay out under a policy. The entirety of s. 7 of the said Act is focused on tortious claims, and there is no indication that s. 7(3B) is intended to extend to contractual obligations.
Chandirasegaran Ramasamy v. AmGeneral Insurance Bhd [2024] 6 CLJ 65 [HC]
INSURANCE | LIMITATION
INSURANCE: Claim - Policy - Group personal accident insurance policy - Deceased died in fatal motorcycle accident - Deceased did not possess valid motorcycle riding licence at time of death - Claim by father and administrator of deceased's estate for benefits under policy - Claim repudiated by insurer - Whether claim time-barred under s. 6 of Limitation Act 1953 - Whether there was unlawful act at time of accident - Whether s. 7(3B) of Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2019 applied - Whether insurer entitled to deny claim under policy
LIMITATION: Cause of action - Accrual - Insurance policy - Deceased died in fatal motorcycle accident - Claim by father and administrator of deceased's estate for benefits under policy - Whether indemnity insurance policy or claims-made policy - Whether insurer's obligation to pay triggered by occurrence of insured event - When cause of action accrued - Whether claim time-barred under s. 6 of Limitation Act 1953
Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J
- For the appellant - M Manoharan; M/s M Manoharan & Co
- For the respondent - WL Wong & Asha Mohan; M/s Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong
Proprietors of lands that are partially acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('LAA') are concerned about the effect of 'injurious affection' and/or 'severance' (if any) caused to the remaining parts of their land. The LAA contains provisions for compensation to be awarded for losses caused by such situations. In this case, the awards for injurious affection, which was divided into several parts, ie, value of setback area, loss of visibility from the highway and impairment on the remaining land, adequately compensated the applicant and satisfied art. 13 of the Federal Constitution.
Kaochern Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan & Another Case [2024] 6 CLJ 83 [HC]
LAND LAW
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Partially acquired land - Compensation - Claim for injurious affection - Reduction of setback distance - Whether approval granted by Minister of Public Works - Reduction of gross development and increase in building costs - Loss of visibility from highway - Early possession of land - Whether awards for injurious affection would adequately compensate - Federal Constitution, art. 13 - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 8 - Highway Authority Malaysia (Set Backs of Highway) Regulations 2007, reg. 2(3)
- For the appellant - David Ng Yew Kiat & Leah Marie Samuel; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
- For the respondent - Iskandar Zulkarnaen; FC
- Watching Brief (DUKE Phase 3 Sdn Bhd) - Adi Harman Mawardi & Mohamad Amir Ardzhar
- Government Assessor - Mohd Zamri Awang
- Private Assessor - Ery Zuwardi Anuar
(i) The automatic moratorium under s. 410 of the Companies Act 2016 ('CA'), triggered by the filing of a judicial management application under s. 404 of the CA, is a draconian remedy and requires strict compliance with all statutory pre-conditions. Non-compliance with these pre-conditions will mean the moratorium does not validly come into effect; (ii) Initiating court proceedings, such as successive judicial management applications, for a purpose other than the intended relief constitutes an abuse of process. This includes instances where there is a lack of progress towards rehabilitation, non-disclosure of material facts, and failure to adhere to procedural rules without reasonable explanation.
Novabrite Lighting Sdn Bhd v. Emrail Sdn Bhd; Balaranee Construction (Proposed Intervener) [2024] 6 CLJ 114 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Abuse of process - Judicial management - Proposed judicial management order for judicial management - Whether judicial management applications filed over period of four years abuse of court process - Whether filed to take unfair advantage of automatic moratorium arising on filing of judicial management application - Whether tactical ploy to preclude creditors from initiating action to recover debts - Companies Act 2016, ss. 404 & 410
- For the applicant - Irwin Lo; M/s Lo Chambers
- For the respondent - Ooi Suan Kim; M/s OS Kim & Assocs
- For the proposed intervener - S Naveen; M/s S Ravenesan
(i) In proving the offence of a criminal breach of trust ('CBT') under s. 408 of the Penal Code, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt three principal ingredients, which are entrustment or dominion, the misappropriation and finally, dishonest intention. All these three ingredients must be present and proven before the accused could be convicted of CBT. It is also trite law that without dishonest intention, a misappropriation or conversion cannot amount to CBT. In the present case, the preferred charges itself did not disclose that the accused was actuated by dishonest intention when committing the alleged offences of CBT as for the transactions specified. In the absence of salient stipulations in the preferred charges against the accused, he was prejudiced, as left unable to answer them adequately to negate the principal ingredient of the offence of CBT, that he was not the person who was entrusted with the alleged impugned property or dominion over it; (ii) A trial judge ought to consider, scrutinise and evaluate all the evidence tendered in the case against the accused pursuant to s. 173(m)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Only after a trial judge has gauged the total evidence adduced, inclusive of all the evidence adduced at the prosecution's stage and tested as against the defence evidence, may the fate of the accused person be decided by the court.
Shamsul Bahri Musa v. PP & Another Appeal [2024] 6 CLJ 154 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 408 - Criminal breach of trust ('CBT') - Allegation of - Whether there was direct proof of entrustment of property with accused - Whether there was dishonest intention by accused when committing offence - Whether ingredients of offence of CBT fulfilled - Whether there was gaping gap in case of prosecution - Adverse inference pursuant to s. 114(g) of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether invoked - Whether trial judge considered, scrutinised and evaluated all evidence tendered against accused pursuant to s. 173(m)(i) of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether conviction safe - Whether there was miscarriage of justice
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 408 - Criminal breach of trust ('CBT') - Preferred charges - Whether lacked foundation and unsupported by credible evidence - Failure to stipulate mode by which offence was committed - Whether mens rea and actus reus of offence committed specified - Absence of salient stipulations in preferred charges - Whether flawed - Whether accused prejudiced - Whether ingredients of offence of CBT fulfilled - Whether conviction safe - Whether there was miscarriage of justice - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 173(m)(i)
- For the appellant - DC Hasnal Rezua Merican & Muzzamil Merican; M/s The Chambers of Kamarul Hisham & Hasnal Rezua
- For the respondent - Zaileen Nadia Zubir; DPP
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
-
THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (CONSTRUCTION WORK) (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2024: A BOON OR BANE IN THE ARCHITECT'S PERSPECTIVE
[Read excerpt]
by Adj Prof Ar IDr David Yek Tak Wai* [2025] CLJU(A) lviii
[2025] CLJU(A) lviii
MALAYSIA
THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (CONSTRUCTION WORK) (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2024:
A BOON OR BANE IN THE ARCHITECT'S PERSPECTIVE
by
Adj Prof Ar IDr David Yek Tak Wai*
ABSTRACT
The Occupational Safety and Health (Construction Work) (Design and Management) Regulations 2024 ('OSHR') represent a significant shift in Malaysia's construction safety landscape, mandating early-stage risk planning and assigning legal duties to clients, designers, and contractors. Modelled after the UK's Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, the OSHR replaces the voluntary Occupational Safety and Health in the Construction Industry (Management) ('OSHCIM') Guidelines and introduces new terminology and statutory roles that have caused initial confusion among stakeholders. Concerns have been raised about the readiness of professionals to fulfil these legal obligations without adequate training, the potential overlap with existing contractual and statutory liabilities, and the absence of a mature enforcement body like the UK's Health and Safety Environment. The Regulations necessitate proactive risk management across all phases of a construction project, placing substantial responsibility on clients and construction professionals. Successful implementation requires clear guidance, industry upskilling, and institutional support to address challenges in compliance and role assumption while minimising regulatory misapplication.
. . .
-
THE WATER DILEMMA: RIGHTS AND SUSTAINABILITY IN MALAYSIA*
[Read excerpt]
by Abang Iwawan[i] Fathin Farina[ii] [2025] CLJU(A) lix
[2025] CLJU(A) lix
MALAYSIA
THE WATER DILEMMA: RIGHTS AND SUSTAINABILITY IN MALAYSIA*
by
Abang Iwawan[i]
Fathin Farina[ii]
ABSTRACT
Access to clean and safe water is not just a necessity but a fundamental human right. Yet, despite Malaysia's natural abundance of water, equitable access remains elusive due to systemic inefficiencies and governance gaps. The challenge lies not in scarcity but in the fragmented regulatory framework, which breeds inconsistencies in quality control and distribution. This article explores Malaysia's legal and institutional landscape for water management, dissecting the jurisdictional divides that perpetuate inefficiencies and examining the reforms necessary to secure universal access to this fundamental resource.
The consequences of this fragmented governance extend beyond policy inefficiencies—they manifest in real and pressing crises. Through case studies such as the Sungai Kim Kim chemical pollution incident and the recurring floods in several states across Malaysia, including Kelantan, this article underscores the far-reaching impact of regulatory disarray on public health, environmental sustainability, and fundamental human rights. Without a cohesive and integrated approach to water management, vulnerable communities remain at heightened risk of contamination and scarcity.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| AKTA 780 |
Akta Bernama 1967 (Disemak 2016) |
AKTA A1762 |
14 Jun 2025 [PU(B) 220/2025] |
Seksyen 2, 7, 10, 11, 21, 25 dan Jadual |
| ACT 780 |
Bernama Act 1967 (Revised 2016) |
ACT A1762 |
14 June 2025 [PU(B) 220/2025] |
Sections 2, 7, 10, 11, 21, 25 and Schedule |
| ACT 389 |
Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation Fund Act 1966 (Revised 1989) |
ACT A1765 |
15 June 2025 [PU(B) 218/2025] |
Sections 2, 5, 7A, 8, 9, 11 and 13 |
| AKTA 505 |
Akta Pentadbiran Undang-Undang Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1993 |
AKTA A1592 |
1 Jun 2025 [PU(B) 211/2025] |
Seksyen 7, 97 dan 99 |
| ACT 505 |
Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 |
ACT A1592 |
1 June 2025 [PU(B) 211/2025] |
Sections 7, 97 and 99 |
Revoked
|
