| Print this page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue #40/2026
01 October 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
YEO GEOK BENG v. GOLDSAND JV SDN BHD & ANOR [2026] 8 CLJ 939 (i) An order striking out or expunging an affidavit, under O. 41 r. 6 and O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'), in interlocutory proceedings is strictly confined to the propriety of that specific filed document, and it does not constitute a substantive pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of the underlying facts, conversations, or separate exhibits contained in other parts of the court record; (ii) Disputed documents, audio recordings and transcriptions whose authenticity or contents are contested should not be summarily excluded prior to trial; instead, they must be placed in the appropriate pre-trial case management bundle under O. 34 r. 2(2)(e) of the ROC for their admissibility, authentication, compliance with s. 90A of the Evidence Act 1950, relevance, and weight to be fully heard and determined by the trial court. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Interlocutory orders - Order expunging affidavit - Whether order expunging affidavit in interlocutory proceedings operates as bar to adducing related audio recordings and transcriptions at trial - Rules of Court 2012, O. 41 r. 6 & O. 92 r. 4 EVIDENCE: Admissibility - Audio recordings and transcriptions - Covertly made recordings - Objection to adducing evidence prior to trial on grounds of want of consent, unpleaded contents, and prior expungement of separate affidavit - Whether questions of admissibility, authentication, compliance with s. 90A of Evidence Act 1950, and relevance should be determined in advance of trial or reserved for trial court - Rules of Court 2012, O. 34 r. 2(2)(e) APPEAL UPDATES
LATEST CASESLegal Network Series
CLJ 2026 Volume 8 (Part 5) Keengganan saksi terlindung untuk menjawab soalan-soalan tertentu semasa pemeriksaan balas, atas alasan melindungi identitinya menurut s. 265C(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, tidak menafikan hak tertuduh terhadap perbicaraan yang adil. Keadaan ini terpakai sekiranya pihak pembelaan diberi peluang menjalankan pemeriksaan balas secara meluas, berkesan, dan mencabar kredibiliti saksi secara menyeluruh tanpa menimbulkan prejudis. Hak perlembagaan tertuduh untuk memeriksa balas adalah setara dengan hak saksi dan mangsa untuk mendapat perlindungan keselamatan di bawah undang-undang. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH | KETERANGAN | PROSEDUR JENAYAH
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Membunuh - Niat bersama - Tertuduh-tertuduh masing-masing didapati bersalah, disabitkan seperti pertuduhan dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 36 tahun dan 12 sebatan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh dinafikan hak perbicaraan adil - Sama ada hakim bicara terkhilaf dalam menilai pembelaan tertuduh-tertuduh - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34 & 302 KETERANGAN: Saksi - Saksi terlindung - Tertuduh-tertuduh dituduh membunuh - Pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi terlindung - Keengganan saksi terlindung menjawab soalan-soalan tertentu demi melindungi identiti - Imbangan antara hak perlembagaan tertuduh dan hak perlindungan keselamatan saksi - Sama ada keengganan saksi terlindung menjawab soalan-soalan menafikan hak tertuduh-tertuduh terhadap perbicaraan adil - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 265A - Akta Perlindungan Saksi 2009 PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Tertuduh-tertuduh dituduh membunuh - Tertuduh-tertuduh masing-masing didapati bersalah, disabitkan seperti pertuduhan, dan dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 36 tahun dan 12 sebatan - Penilaian keterangan pembelaan - Sama ada pembelaan berbentuk penafian kosong, fikiran kemudian dan rekaan - Sama ada hakim bicara mengarahkan minda kehakiman dengan betul - Sama ada pembelaan menimbulkan keraguan munasabah - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34 & 302 Azman Abdullah HMR
Citizenship claims under art. 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution (‘FC’) necessitate strict adherence to the explicit textual requirements of the Second Schedule, as a purposive interpretation cannot override clear statutory limitations. Crucially, the evidentiary presumption of citizenship under s. 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule of the FC applies exclusively to a 'newborn child' and cannot be extended to older abandoned children, rendering the provision inapplicable when a child's estimated age contradicts the underlying deeming mechanism of the statute. Consequently, in the absence of s. 19B, the inability to identify or establish the biological parents' citizenship or permanent residency status at the time of birth completely precludes a claim under s. 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the FC, a defect that cannot be cured retrospectively by a subsequent adoption order or post-adoption birth certificate. Furthermore, to successfully assert citizenship under s. 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule, an applicant bears the burden of proving that no foreign citizenship was acquired at birth, a threshold that is not satisfied merely by an absence of evidence resulting from unknown biological parentage. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | FAMILY LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Citizenship by operation of law - Abandoned child - Appellant found abandoned at bus station - Identity and citizenship status of biological parents unknown - Late registration of birth recording citizenship status as 'belum ditentukan' and subsequent post-adoption birth certificate recording status as 'bukan warganegara' - Whether appellant entitled to declaratory relief of citizenship - Federal Constitution, art. 14(1)(b), Second Schedule, Part II, ss. 1(a), 1(e), 2(3), Part III, s. 19B CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Citizenship by operation of law - Presumption as to newborn child - Meaning of 'newborn child' under s. 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution - Appellant estimated to be between one and one and a half years old when found abandoned - Whether fell under definition of 'newly born' - Whether s. 19B applicable to appellant - Federal Constitution, Second Schedule, Part III, s. 19B CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Citizenship by operation of law - Birth within Federation - Status of parents - Whether appellant established that at least one parent was citizen or permanent resident at time of birth - Whether burden of proof discharged when biological parents' particulars unknown - Federal Constitution, Second Schedule, Part II, s. 1(a) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Citizenship - Citizenship by operation of law - Statelessness - Whether appellant born within Federation and not born a citizen of any other country - Interpretation of s. 1(e) read together with s. 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution - Whether unknown parental citizenship automatically satisfies requirement of statelessness FAMILY LAW: Adoption - Adoption order - Citizenship of adopted child - Appellant adopted by Malaysian citizens pursuant to adoption order under Adoption Act 1952 - Whether adoption order and Malaysian citizenship of adoptive parents confer citizenship by operation of law on adopted child - Whether adoptive parents fall within definition of 'parents' under Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
(i) In the absence of rules promulgated under the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 pursuant to s. 56 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('LRA'), pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements cannot be regarded as valid, admissible, or enforceable in matrimonial proceedings under the LRA, as there is no statutory framework governing their recognition and approval; (ii) The word 'may' in s. 56 of the LRA carries a mandatory effect. The provision does not permit parties or the court to disregard the procedural framework contemplated by the Legislature. Accordingly, where reliance is placed on agreements under s. 56, such agreements are subject to the prescribed procedural framework, without which the statutory mechanism remains incomplete and incapable of operating. FAMILY LAW | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial proceedings - Documents - Post-nuptial agreement ('agreement') - Agreement permitting husband to maintain mistress during subsistence of marriage - Validity and enforceability of agreement - Whether agreement admissible in matrimonial proceedings in absence of rules prescribed under s. 56 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Whether court could give effect to agreement in absence of legislative framework - Whether agreement invalid STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 56 - 'may' - Whether 'may' conferred mere discretion or to be construed as imposing mandatory requirement to comply with statutory framework - Whether absence of rules contemplated under s. 56 rendered statutory mechanism incomplete and incapable of operation - Whether pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement could be admitted and enforced in matrimonial proceedings
Supang Lian JCA
(i) The application of the Distribution Act 1958 ('DA') is determined by the religion of the deceased rather than that of the beneficiary. A legitimate child, regardless of his/her religious status, remains entitled to inherit under the DA where the estate is that of a non-Muslim deceased, as the DA contains no provision excluding a Muslim child from inheriting a non-Muslim parent's estate; (ii) Uncodified religious principles, including hadiths and fatwas, cannot override clear statutory provisions enacted by Parliament or the State Legislatures. In matters concerning the distribution of a non-Muslim deceased's estate, the civil courts are bound to apply the relevant written law, namely the DA, as the subject matter falls within civil succession and not Islamic personal law. SUCCESSION | ISLAMIC LAW
SUCCESSION: Distribution of estate - Entitlement - Intestate estate of non-Muslim deceased - Muslim child, being legitimate child of deceased, excluded as beneficiary of deceased's estate - Whether Distribution Act 1958 ('DA') precluded Muslim child from inheriting non-Muslim deceased parent's estate - Whether applicability of DA determined by religion of deceased or beneficiary - Whether exclusion of beneficiary from small estate proceedings rendered distribution order liable to be set aside - Whether other beneficiaries entitled to be heard in application to set aside distribution order ISLAMIC LAW: Legislation - Validity - Hadith and fatwa - Hadith and fatwa issued by Mufti of Federal Territories stating Muslims could not inherit from non-Muslims and vice versa - Whether hadith and fatwa codified into Malaysian law - Whether uncodified religious principles could override clear statutory provisions enacted by Parliament - Whether such principles applicable in civil proceedings concerning distribution of non-Muslim deceased's estate
Supang Lian JCA
(i) A registered land proprietor cannot be held strictly liable for the unlawful abstraction of utility services on their property, as mere ownership does not automatically shift the burden of proof or transform a landlord into an insurer against illegal acts committed by unknown third parties. Where the premises is occupied by a tenant, a utility provider cannot rely solely on the land title to establish liability. Instead, to succeed in common law claims such as conversion or unjust enrichment, the utility provider must affirmatively prove that the landlord directly possessed, authorised, ratified, or benefited from the stolen electricity; (ii) An owner who has never applied for an electricity connection does not meet the definition of a 'consumer' under s. 2 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990. Because such a claim falls outside the scope of s. 38, the statutory mechanisms - such as the certificate of loss serving as prima facie evidence under s. 38(4) - cannot be triggered. The utility provider bears the standard burden to prove liability and damages (iii) Procedurally, a judgment delivered by a successor judge who did not preside over the trial is legally valid and does not violate the rules of natural justice under O. 35 r. 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, provided the successor judge has fully reviewed the recorded notes of evidence and written submissions before rendering the decision. UTILITIES | EVIDENCE | CIVIL PROCEDURE
UTILITIES: Electricity - Unlawful abstraction - Claim for loss of revenue - Whether there was tampering with incoming supply and feeder - Liability of registered owner of premises - Whether owner occupied premises or applied for electricity supply - Whether premises let out to third-party tenants - Whether owner liable for illegal abstraction of electricity - Whether common law claims in conversion or unjust enrichment sustainable against non-occupying owner - Electricity Supply Act 1990 EVIDENCE: Statutory presumption - Prima facie evidence - Notice of demand - Allegation of unlawful abstraction of electricity - Claim for loss of revenue - Calculation derived from Energy Commission Guidelines ('Guidelines') - Whether owner of premises 'consumer' within meaning of s. 2 of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Whether claim brought outside statutory framework of ss. 38(3) to (5) - Whether attracted statutory evidential presumption under s. 38(4) - Whether notice of demand and Guidelines have statutory weight if adopted as matter of 'good practice' - Burden of proof on liability and quantum CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Judgment - Coram - Transfer of trial judge before delivery of judgment - Original judge ceasing to hold office as Sessions Court Judge - Decision delivered by successor judge - Whether successor judge read notes of evidence and written submissions before arriving at decision - Whether judgment a nullity for want of coram - Scope and interpretation of 'other cause' - Rules of Court 2012, O. 35 r. 11(1) Raja Segaran S Krishnan JC
(i) Successive employment contracts do not transmute into disguised permanent employment if they lack an automatic renewal clause, stipulate clear termination dates, and are executed with the mutual understanding that the engagements constitute fresh, fixed-term contracts; and (ii) An employer's contractual power to transfer an employee is not absolute. A transfer constitutes a repudiatory breach of contract if it effectively strips the employee of their substantive role and relegates them to a materially different, lesser, and undefined position outside the organisation's core operational structure. LABOUR LAW | CONTRACT
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant transferred to newly established unit - Change in reporting line - Whether transfer fell outside scope of contractual transfer provision - Whether transfer stripped claimant of substantive role and relegated to materially different and lower position - Whether transfer valid and lawful - Whether amounted to repudiatory breach of contract CONTRACT: Employment contract - Fixed-term contract - Claimant engaged on seven successive contracts without automatic renewal clause - Whether permanent employment - Whether arrangement disguised permanent employment - Whether genuine fixed-term contract
Anand Ponnudurai J
(i) Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ('REJA'), Malaysian registration courts cannot examine or enquire into the merits of the underlying foreign claim, as such determination lies exclusively within the foreign court's jurisdiction; (ii) The public policy exception under s. 5(1)(a)(v) of the REJA must be applied restrictively and narrowly in rare, exceptional cases, guided by the overarching principles of international comity and reciprocity; domestic public policy concepts do not control the recognition or enforcement of a validly registered foreign judgment. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Foreign judgments - Registration - Setting aside - Judgment creditor in Singapore obtained judgment against Malaysian judgment debtor to recover monies due under credit facility agreements and credit markers - Application to set aside registration of Singapore judgment for second time - Whether foreign gaming debt contrary to public policy - Whether Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 allows re-litigation of merits - Whether application barred by res judicata and abuse of process - Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, s. 5(1)(a)(v)
Aliza Sulaiman J
(i) Section 145 of the National Land Code ('NLC') empowers the court to order the termination of a co-proprietorship through a forced sale or a direct buy-out when commercial deadlock, an absence of mutual trust, and a lack of realistic prospects for cooperation render partition or the continuation of the co-proprietorship impracticable; (ii) A judicial order for sale under the statutory mechanism of s. 145 of the NLC does not infringe upon the indefeasibility of title under s. 340 of the NLC or constitutional property rights under art. 13 of the Federal Constitution, as such an order represents a lawful liquidation of property for fair market value rather than an uncompensated deprivation of property. LAND LAW | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
LAND LAW: Co-proprietors - Termination of co-proprietorship - Application for termination of co-proprietorship and direct buy-out of minority share - Deadlock and absence of mutual trust - Whether statutory preconditions satisfied - Whether physical partition of minority undivided share permissible - National Land Code, ss. 136 & 145 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to property - Order for sale of co-proprietorship land - Whether infringed indefeasibility of title and constitutional right to property - Federal Constitution, art. 13 - National Land Code, ss. 145 & 340
Johan Lee Kien How J
ARTICLESLNS Article(s)
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|