CASE SPOTLIGHTS
CHANRAVATHANE S PONNUDURAI v. MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA [2025] 7 CLJ 723
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI JCA
AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(A)-741-05-2023]
13 MARCH 2025
It is a clear legislative intent of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') that an appeal to the High Court should only be made on a final order or decision of the Disciplinary Board ('DB'), that encapsulates both an order on liability and on punishment. A letter by the DB notifying the advocate and solicitor of the affirmation of liability and giving the said advocate and solicitor the opportunity to be heard is essentially a notification, which is more indicative in nature and is certainly not definitive, and could not therefore be construed as the final order or decision that is appealable under s. 103 of the LPA.
LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary Proceedings - Disciplinary Board ('DB') - Complaint against advocate and solicitor - Affirmation of findings of liability by Disciplinary Committee ('DC') - DB's letter notifying advocate and solicitor of affirmation of liability and giving opportunity to be heard - Advocate and solicitor filed originating summons to appeal against DB's letter - Whether premature and incompetent - Whether DB's letter final order or decision - Whether appealable under s. 103E of Legal Profession Act 1976
JUDICIAL QUOTES
“Witness immunity rule protects parties or witnesses from actions based on their acts or statements within judicial proceedings. If at the striking out application, it is determined that witness immunity applies then the case would be struck out without having to go for trial. However, if the determination at the striking out application is that witness immunity is not applicable, the case goes for trial. By parity of logical reasoning, it would defeat the whole purpose of invoking witness immunity, if a witness is to go for a full trial first to determine whether immunity applies, as he would have been vexed at the full trial in the second suit when defending the claim by the plaintiff.”
“No matter how the plaintiff dressed or crafted the causes of action in Suit 460 (the second suit) it is pertinent to scrutinise the particulars of the pleadings of the relevant torts alleged against the defendants. In the present appeals the pleadings disclosed that Suit 460 (the second suit) arose from the testimony and acts of witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings. ... Therefore, witness immunity is to be determined at the striking out application at the pleading stage, before proceeding for a full trial.” - Per Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ in Ng Wai Pin v. Ong Yew Teik & Other Appeals [2025] 7 CLJ 859
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2025] CLJU 71
|
COSTWIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v. TEH CHONG PING & ANOTHER CASE
1. In the context of s. 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA 2012'), it is not the function of the Court to look into or review complaint that the arbitrator had omitted to consider the defence of a party or answers to the interrogatories. The facts relating to complaint, defence or answers to the interrogatories are for the adjudicator to assess and decide.
2. The word 'due date' in the context of s. 5(2)(a) of CIPAA 2012 means the date when the amount claimed is expected to be paid. The due date must be included in the payment claim but it is not a mandatory requirement that it must be stated in numerical form or there must be a calendar date to satisfy s. 5(2)(a) of CIPAA 2012. In cases where the calendar date was not being expressly stated in the payment claim, the due date can be ascertained from the facts of the case. There is no ambiguity in payment claim which merely states immediate payment.
3. Absence of a formal contract does not necessarily mean that the adjudicator was in excess of jurisdiction and therefore breached s. 2 of CIPAA 2012 in determining payment dispute between parties.
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Adjudication decision - Payment claim - Absence of written contract between parties - Allegation that adjudicator did not consider defence and answers to interrogatories - Whether dispute between parties fell outside ambit of s. 2 of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA 2012') - Whether adjudicator had considered all relevant documents - Whether adjudicator had breached s. 12(4) of CIPAA 2012 - Whether adjudicator had afforded procedural fairness to parties - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether adjudicator had acted in excess of jurisdiction
WORDS AND PHRASES: 'Due date' - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s. 5(2)(a) - Payment claim - Whether due date must be included in payment claim - Whether actual calendar date must be stated in payment claim - Whether requirement for immediate payment was sufficient
|
|
[2025] CLJU 83
|
JIANGSU PROVINCIAL CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD v. D BOX SYSTEM (M) SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE
An application to set aside an arbitral award should be set aside within 90 days from the date of the receipt of award. The 90 days timeline is more than sufficient for the party intending to set aside the arbitral award to do the needful. Parties who have voluntarily submitted their dispute to arbitration, were represented by counsels and must be bound by the provisions in the Arbitration Act 2005, including on the 90 days requirement for filing application to set aside arbitral award.
ARBITRATION: Arbitral award - Setting aside - Delay - Whether applicant should be given leave to initiate proceeding by way of originating summons to set aside award out of time - Whether court has discretion to grant an extension of time to initiate setting aside of award - Whether there were compelling reasons for Court to exercise its discretion to grant leave to be allowed to file setting aside application out of time - Whether parties were given opportunity to present their case and make submissions - Whether award was in conflict of public policy - Whether there was a breach of rules of natural justice during arbitral proceedings and in connection with making of award
- For the plaintiff in O.S. No. 18 and the Respondent in O.S. No. 38 - Noor Muslihah Marhaban; M/s Hew, Lee & Co
- For the Applicant in O.S. No. 38 and the Defendant in O.S. No. 18 - Colin Victor George & Christine Jee Panji Papanji; M/s Colin Victor & Co
|
|
[2025] CLJU 87
|
VISTA SUMMEROSE SDN BHD v. DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR
The mayor of Kuala Lumpur City Hall has discretion to delegate his duties to any person when necessary to assist in carrying out his powers. An agreement for collection of parking charges, compounding and enforcement entered by the Mayor with any person to whom such powers were delegated is therefore not forbidden by the law.
CONTRACT: Agreement - Validity - Parking management agreement - Collection of parking charges, compounding and enforcement - Whether contract lawful under s. 24 of Contracts Act 1950 ('CA') - Whether plaintiff's role under contract was merely to assist defendant in carrying out its powers - Whether powers to determine designed parking areas and parking fees remain with defendant - Whether contract was opposed to public policy - Whether contract was designed to facilitate parking in city in an organised and transparent manner for benefit of public - Whether contract was enforeceable under s. 2 of CA
- For the plaintiff - Edmund Choi & Razlan Hadri; M/s Gan Ho & Razlan Hadri
- For the defendant - Nalani Murugiah & B Thangaraj; M/s Thangaraj & Assoc
|
|
[2025] CLJU 90
|
TAN KIM HWA v. PENDAFTAR BESAR WARGANEGARA MALAYSIA
Registrar-General of National Registration Department has duty to keep and maintain an accurate register of births and issue birth certificates with correct information. Section 27(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 allows amendment to be made on the register of births in the event of any factual or substantive error.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Registrar General of National Registration Department - Refusal to recognize status as Malaysian citizen - Status was changed from Malaysian citizen to non-citizen via issuance of new birth certificate - Child born in clinic and had been allegedly abandoned by his biological parents - Whether amendment to citizen status in birth certificate was tainted with error of law - Whether true identity of applicant was disclosed from beginning - Whether presumption under s. 19B of Part III of Second Schedule of Federal Constitution invoked - Whether mere averment that applicant was born and had resided in Federation was sufficient to meet threshold to proof that he was not born a citizen of any country
- For the plaintiffs - Zaid Abd Malik & Khairun Nabila Kamaruddin; M/s Daim & Gamany
- For the defendant - Farah Shuhada Ramli, Senior Federal Counsel, Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia
|
|
[2025] CLJU 92
|
ASIAN KITCHEN (M) SDN BHD v. MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD
The threshold for mandatory injunctions is higher than that of prohibitory injunctions. An interim mandatory injunction is never granted before trial save in exceptional and extremely rare cases. Mandatory injunctions will not be granted if that would alter existing legal relationships, especially those which are governed by clear contractual terms. It follows interim mandatory injunction will be refused if injunction is sought by tenant to compel a change to the position requiring landlord to continue the landlord-tenant relationship beyond its agreed termination of tenancy period.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim injunction - Mandatory injunction - Injunction to compel landlord to allow tenant to remain in possession of landlord's premises after expiry of tenancy agreement - Whether there was real issue to be tried - Whether case was unusually strong and clear - Whether injunction is to compel a change in position or to preserve status quo - Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of granting injunction - Whether damages were an adequate remedy - Whether tenant must yield up vacant possession
- For the plaintiffs - EE Kah Fuk & Chin Evon, M/s K F Ee & Co
- For the defendant - Oazair Huneid Tyeb & Nik Aimi Nabilah; M/s Shahrizat Rashid & Lee
- DP Naban, Lisa Yong, Amiratu Al Amirat & Gan Yu Ju; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravana
|
CLJ 2025 Volume 7 (Part 4)
(i) Special damages in a civil claim need only be established on a balance of probabilities. The phrase 'strictly proved' does not denote that evidence is bound to be adduced to a greater degree than the balance of probabilities. This means that the term 'strictly proved' in relation to the evidentiary burden does not increase such burden in any manner otherwise than to require that it meets the civil standard of proof; (ii) A consumer who has been victimised by an electricity supplier, ie, Tenaga Nasional Bhd, by the wrongful disconnection of electricity may be entitled to seek exemplary damages, depending on the particular facts of its case, although such a case is rare.
Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 7 CLJ 519 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE | WORDS & PHRASES
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Special damages - Claim for - Disconnection of electricity supply to claimant's premises - Whether special damages demonstrated - Evidential approach to be taken in relation to proof of special damages - Meaning of 'strictly proved' - How was evidentiary burden established by claimant - Whether such evidentiary burden greater than establishing claim on balance of probabilities
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Damages - Exemplary damages - Claim for - Disconnection of electricity supply to claimant's premises - Whether exemplary damages claimable by consumer of electricity in claim for breach of contract against electricity supplier - Whether electricity supplier had statutory duty to consumer - Whether there was breach of that statutory duty - Whether consumer had valid cause of action - Whether exemplary damages ought to be awarded - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 24 & 25
WORDS & PHRASES: Meaning - 'strictly proved' - Whether such evidentiary burden greater than establishing claim on balance of probabilities
Hasnah Mohammed Hashim CJ (Malaya)
Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ
Rhodzariah Bujang FCJ
- For the appellant - Logan Sabapathy, Lim Yew Yi & Vivian Oh Xiao Hui; M/s Kerk & Partners
- For the respondent - Steven Thiru, Hadi Mukhlis Khairulmaini & Gurjeevan Singh Sachdev; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
An award by the Land Administrator under s. 14 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is final and conclusive upon its creation, and not merely an offer. For parties who were present or represented at the Land Administrator's inquiry when the award was made, the statutory timeline for filing an objection via Form N, is six weeks from the date of the Land Administrator's award. For those not present, the objection must be filed within six weeks of receiving notice or within six months from the date of the award, whichever is earlier. Failure to file Form N within the prescribed statutory period will result in its rightful rejection due to being time-barred.
Kumpulan Ladang-ladang Trengganu Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Nerus [2025] 7 CLJ 559 [CA]
LAND LAW
LAND LAW: Acquisition - Compensation - Objection against compensation awarded - Application for enlargement of time to object against award - Amount of compensation noted by appraiser allegedly differed from award recorded by Land Administrator - Applicant objected to award but exceeded statutory time limit - Whether time to raise objection under Form N only after receipt of Form H - Whether there existed special circumstances to enlarge time - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 14 & 38(4)
Azizah Nawawi JCA
Nazlan Mohd Ghazali JCA
Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA
- For the appellant - Tengku Nazmi Tengku Anuar & Wong Yan Zhang; M/s Azmi & Assocs
- For the respondent - Afifah Mamat; Terengganu State Legal Advisor
A party cannot proceed to court when the other party wants to arbitrate pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement. This is so whether the right to proceed with arbitration is either at the option of one party or that both have the option to choose either option or to choose one option normally stated to be arbitration. The test is not whether there is a valid agreement to go to court for that is an inherent right in the absence of a special bargain to arbitrate. The test is whether any one of the parties has opted for arbitration at which instance an arbitration agreement has come into being.
Setia Awan Management Sdn Bhd v. SPNB Aspirasi Sdn Bhd [2025] 7 CLJ 578 [CA]
ARBITRATION
ARBITRATION: Stay of proceedings - Parties entered into agreement for residential development project - Agreement contained arbitration clause - Dispute arose and one party terminated agreement and demanded compensation - Other party claimed for damages for breach of agreement - One party applied for stay of court proceedings pending reference to arbitration - Whether there was arbitration agreement between parties - Whether court ought to grant stay of its proceedings in favour of arbitration - Whether giving of option to parties to proceed to court or to arbitration rendered arbitration agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed - Whether arbitral tribunal tasked to rule on validity of arbitration agreement - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 10 & 18
Lee Swee Seng JCA
Choo Kah Sing JCA
Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin JCA
- For the appellant - Dinesh Nandrajog & Syahara Azhari; M/s Nandrajog
- For the respondent - Masturina Mohamad Rodzi; M/s Edwin Lim & Suren
The materiality of the breach of warranty is immaterial for consideration in respect of a claim that arises subsequent to the breach of the warranty. Once there is a breach of warranty, the insurer's discharge from liability is automatic and not at all dependent upon any decision by the insurer to treat the contract as at an end. A direct causal link between the breach and the ultimate loss is not required, that is, the relevant test is not whether the non-compliance actually caused or contributed to the loss which had been suffered. The test is whether there was a breach of warranty. If there is, the insurer could not be liable to the policy holder on the claim. There could be no claim that is payable by the insurer on the policy in respect of liability arising post the breach.
Kejora Resources Sdn Bhd v. Chubb Insurance Malaysia Bhd [2025] 7 CLJ 609 [HC]
INSURANCE
INSURANCE: Policy - Indemnity - Marine insurance - Claim - Repudiation - Insurer provided insurance coverage to insured in respect of hull and machinery, including perils of sea - Port main engine of tug encountered sudden overspeed - Port main engine of tug exploded - Tug underwent damages inspection and repair works - Insured's claim for bill being costs and charges incurred for repair works on port main engine - Insurer rejected insured's claim - Whether insurer breached terms of policy when it failed and/or refused to indemnify insured - Whether insurer entitled to repudiate claim under policy - Whether there was breach of warranty
- For the plaintiff - Satharuban & Mishalini Rajasegaran; M/s Satha & Co
- For the defendant - Arun Krishnalingam & Aaron Siva; M/s Sativale Mathew Arun
(i) Under s. 188(2)(a) or (b) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ('CMSA'), a person is liable for insider trading if: (a) they are an 'insider' as defined by s. 188(1) of the CMSA, meaning they possess information that is: (1) not generally available; (2) expected by a reasonable person to have a material effect on the price or value of securities if it becomes generally available; and (3) known, or ought reasonably to be known, by the person to be not generally available; and (b) while possessing such inside information, they either: (1) acquire or dispose of, or enter into an agreement for the acquisition or disposal of, those securities; or (2) procure another person to acquire or dispose of, or enter into an agreement for the acquisition or disposal of, those securities. 'Procurement' includes direct forms of incitement, inducement, encouragement, or direction, such as providing funds to enable the acquisition.
Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia v. Dato' Aminuddin Md Desa [2025] 7 CLJ 640 [HC]
SECURITIES
SECURITIES: Shares - Insider trading - Allegations of contravention of insider trading prohibitions - Acquisition of shares whilst in possession of inside information - Whether alleged perpetrator 'insider' within meaning of s. 188(1) of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ('CMSA') in relation to inside information - Whether there was breach of s. 188(2)(a) of CMSA - Whether perpetrator had directly or indirectly, procured another individual, including but not limited to, inciting, inducing, encouraging and/or causing latter to acquire shares, in breach of s. 188(2) of CMSA - Whether perpetrator's 'no case to answer' entitled court to draw adverse inference against him
Wan Muhammad Amin Wan Yahya J
- For the plaintiff - Benjamin John Dawson, Eileen Othman, Tan Hui Ru & Niisha Lakshme Muthuvelu Mahathavan; M/s Benjamin Dawson
- For the defendant - V Rajadevan & Fathin Delila Hamdan; M/s Rajadevan & Assocs
- Representatives of the Securities Commission Malaysia - Mohd Aerie Rahman, Raihana Nadhira Rafidi & Jonathan Chin Ter Yang
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
-
LEGAL SILENCES ON WOMEN'S WORK: RETHINKING OCCUPATIONAL RISK IN OIL PALM PLANTATIONS UNDER MALAYSIA'S OSHA 1994 AND ITS 2022 AMENDMENT ACT
[Read excerpt]
by Shantini Sukumaran[i] Dr Haezreena Begum binti Abdul Hamid[ii] [2025] CLJU(A) lxxvi
[2025] CLJU(A) lxxvi
MALAYSIA
LEGAL SILENCES ON WOMEN'S WORK:
RETHINKING OCCUPATIONAL RISK IN OIL PALM PLANTATIONS UNDER MALAYSIA'S OSHA 1994 AND ITS 2022 AMENDMENT ACT
by
Shantini Sukumaran[i]
Dr Haezreena Begum binti Abdul Hamid[ii]
ABSTRACT
This article critically examines the shortcomings within Malaysia's Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA 1994) and its 2022 Amendment Act, with a particular focus on the rights of female workers in the oil palm plantation sector. Through a doctrinal analysis of OSHA 1994 and its 2022 Amendment Act, the study identifies areas where the current legislation may insufficiently address the distinct occupational risks faced by women engaged in handling hazardous agrochemicals. The study highlights that existing legal protections tend to adopt a gender-neutral stance, which may overlook specific health implications related to gender differences in exposure. This results in certain gaps within the regulatory framework that could affect the adequacy of protection for female workers. The article suggests that incorporating gender-responsive considerations into OSHA 1994 and related workplace safety mechanisms could contribute to more comprehensive occupational safety standards, thereby enhancing the protection of women's health in Malaysia's oil palm industry.
. . .
-
CODE OF ETHICS IN JOURNALISM AND THE MALAYSIAN MEDIA COUNCIL: ENSURING CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM
[Read excerpt]
by Wan Nur Addibah binti Adnan[i] Noor Aida binti Aminshah[ii] Muhammad Izwan bin Ishak[iii] [2025] CLJU(A) lxxvii
[2025] CLJU(A) lxxvii
MALAYSIA
CODE OF ETHICS IN JOURNALISM AND THE MALAYSIAN MEDIA COUNCIL:
ENSURING CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM
by
Wan Nur Addibah binti Adnan[i]
Noor Aida binti Aminshah[ii]
Muhammad Izwan bin Ishak[iii]
INTRODUCTION
Responsible journalism, when it is done well, can be a challenging profession. Journalism plays a pivotal role in shaping the public's opinion and becoming the reliable vessel for reporting national and international news. Journalists are required to navigate through polemicists and propagandists. This is even more challenging in recent times, given the rapid evolution of social media and online news platforms, coupled with the introduction of artificial intelligence. Bearing this in mind, Malaysia has taken a step forward to introduce the Code of Ethics for Journalists ('COEJ') in 2024 through the Department of Information Malaysia ('JaPen'). The COEJ serves as guidelines for journalists to maintain their integrity, and among others, also to combat defamation and misinformation. However, the said COEJ was introduced without prior consultation with media stakeholders and prior to the establishment of the Malaysian Media Council ('MMC'), although the Government of Malaysia has agreed on the formation of the MMC since 2019.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
| Number |
Title |
In force from |
Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1767 |
Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2025 |
Not Yet In Force |
ACT 000 |
| ACT A1766 |
Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Amendment) Act 2025 |
10 July 2025 |
ACT 334 |
| ACT A1765 |
Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation Fund (Amendment) Act 2025 |
15 June 2025 [PU(B) 218/2025] |
ACT 389 |
| ACT A1764 |
Fire Services (Amendment) Act 2025 |
1 July 2025 [PU(B) 238/2025] - ss 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18; 1 January 2026 - ss 2, 3, 4, 11, 19, 20 and 21 |
ACT 341 |
| ACT A1763 |
Supplementary Supply (2024) Act 2025 |
15 May 2025 |
|
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| ACT 788 |
Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia Act 2017 |
ACT A1723 |
1 August 2025 [PU(B) 279/2025] |
Sections 2, 5, 6, 10A, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 36A - 36Z, 36ZA - 36ZZ, 36ZAA - 36ZAB, 43, 43A and 43B; First Schedule, Second Schedule and Third Schedule |
| AKTA 788 |
Akta Pihak Berkuasa Penerbangan Awam Malaysia 2017 |
AKTA A1723 |
1 Ogos 2025 [PU(B) 279/2025] |
Seksyen 2, 5, 6, 10A, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 36A - 36Z, 36ZA - 36ZZ, 36ZAA - 36ZAB, 43, 43A dan 43B; Jadual Pertama, Kedua dan ketiga |
| ACT 438 |
Free Zones Act 1990 |
PU(B) 269/2025 |
21 July 2025 |
Second Schedule |
| AKTA 438 |
Akta Zon Bebas 1990 |
PU(B) 269/2025 |
21 Julai 2025 |
Jadual Kedua |
| ACT 593 |
Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999) |
ACT A1751 |
11 July 2025 [PU(B) 263/2025] |
First Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Revoked by |
In force from |
| PU(A) 266/2019 |
Customs Duties (Goods Under the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Area) Order 2019 |
PU(A) 182/2025 |
17 June 2025 |
| PU(A) 69/2025 |
Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Expedited Review) Order 2025 |
PU(A) 181/2025 |
15 June 2025 |
| PU(A) 276/2018 |
Federal Territory (Planning) (Classes of Use of Land and Buildings) (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Rules 2018 |
PU(A) 175/2025 |
11 June 2025 |
| PU(A) 233/2009 |
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009 |
PU(A) 326/2024 |
1 November 2024 |
| PU(A) 473/1999 |
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 1999 |
PU(A) 325/2024 |
1 November 2024 |
|
