CLJ Pulse #21/2026 (21 May 2026)

Issue #21/2026

21 May 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
1. PP v. IMANG SWAK [2026] 5 CLJ 121
2. JUDICIAL QUOTES
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 6)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

PP v. IMANG SWAK [2026] 5 CLJ 121
HIGH COURT SABAH AND SARAWAK, SIBU
WONG SIONG TUNG J
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: SBW-41H-4-11-2024]
28 JANUARY 2026

Under s. 506 of the Penal Code, imprisonment is established as the primary sentencing option for criminal intimidation, reflecting the Legislature's view of the offence as a serious threat to public order. While the court retains the discretion to impose a fine, imprisonment, or both, the statutory language prioritises custodial terms, particularly in cases involving threats of death or grievous harm. Any judicial decision to deviate from this 'imprisonment-first' principle by imposing a fine alone must be supported by clear and cogent reasons to justify why a non-custodial sentence is sufficient.

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 506 - Criminal intimidation - Sentencing - Threat to kill - Use of machete - Gravity and barbarity of intimidation - Impact on victim's sense of personal safety - Public interest - Legislative intent - Whether imposing custodial sentence ought to be primary consequence for offence - Whether there was failure to give 'speaking judgment' on sentence imposed - Whether sentence imposed manifestly inadequate - Whether appellate intervention warranted

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Appeal against - Criminal intimidation - Threat to kill - Use of machete - Gravity and barbarity of intimidation - Impact on victim's sense of personal safety - Public interest - Legislative intent - Whether imposing custodial sentence ought to be primary consequence for offence - Whether there was failure to give 'speaking judgment' on sentence imposed - Whether sentence imposed manifestly inadequate - Whether appellate intervention warranted

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“As elucidated above, an award of aggravated damages can be considered separately from the court's assessment of special and general damages. However, there is no mathematical formula in determining the amount to be awarded for aggravated damages, suffice to say, the amount of award will depend on the facts of each case, which will vary.”

“Moreover, it must be stated that from the perspective of the doctrine of stare decisis, the quantum of aggravated damages awarded in any given case represents an exercise of judicial discretion grounded in the specific facts of that case. Consequently, decisions concerning the quantum of aggravated damages do not constitute binding legal precedents.” - Per Shahnaz Sulaiman JCA in Ahmad Faizal Mohamad Ali & Ors v. Jay Shree LC Doshi [2026] 4 CLJ 691

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2026] CLJU 27	VEO INDUSTRIAL SDN BHD v. SING LONG CORPORATION LIMITED 1. The grant of a fortuna injunction remains an exercise of judicial discretion. That discretion is neither exercised in the abstract nor by rote application of precedent. Rather, it is informed, and ultimately dictated by the particular factual matrix of each case. The inquiry is therefore intensely fact-sensitive, requiring the court to evaluate whether, on the evidence before it, the statutory demand or threatened winding-up proceedings constitute a genuine invocation of the insolvency jurisdiction or an impermissible attempt to achieve collateral ends. 2. While the law supports the defendant's position that it is not required to specify the exact sum due at the date of the demand pursuant to s. 466(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016, there must nonetheless be an undisputed debt above the statutory threshold. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Fortuna injunction - Debt specified in statutory notice disputed - Alleged debt arose from ongoing trade account - Whether defendant's claim must be established through proper legal proceedings or adjudication - Whether defendant able to prove undisputed debt above statutory threshold - Whether defendant should be restrained by injunction from presenting winding up petition For the plaintiff - Ong Yu Shin, Lim Wooi Ying & Lee Hooi Ying; M/s The Chambers of Yu Shin Ong For the defendant - Lee Khai, Teh Chiew Yin & Lee Huai; M/s Ong & Manecksha
[2026] CLJU 28	TEO YUN HOCK v. AUTOHOME MOTOR SDN BHD & ORS The court will not take a too technical approach to strike out a suit for deficiency in the particulars of fraud pleaded. A plaintiff is not required to plead exactly the circumstances which led to the fraud perpetrated by a defendant. It follows, a defendant cannot assert that he does not know the case against him when the necessary particulars of fraud is pleaded against him by the plaintiff. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Cause of action premised on fraud - Inordinate delay in filing application - Whether particulars of fraud sufficiently pleaded - Whether plaintiff's cause of action against defendant premised on breach of contract - Whether there was inordinate delay in filing application For the plaintiff - Theng Kai Chi & Tan Gee Ang; M/s Ling & Theng Book For 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th defendants - Farhanna Roslan & Wan Nurliyana; M/s Wan Nurliyana & Farhanna For 15th defendant - Abd Shukor Tokachil & Nur Sakinah Pupil in Chamber; M/s Shukor & Associates
[2026] CLJU 29	MFORCE BIKE HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. MOFAZ MOTORSIKAL SDN BHD Pre-action discovery is meant to assist in cases where a potential claim exists but cannot be properly advanced without the documents. A plaintiff's attempt to seeks documents in order to see whether any claim exists at all clearly amounts fishing expedition. It is not the function of O. 24 r. 7 A of the Rules of Court 2012 to enable a party to search for or construct a cause of action. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Pre-action - Whether plaintiff satisfied legal threshold for pre-trial discovery - Whether plaintiff demonstrated genuine bona fide cause of action against defendant - Whether plaintiff able to identify any possible legal wrong allegedly committed by defendant - Whether documents sought relevant to issue in claim to be made - Whether application merely a fishing expedition - Whether scope of documents sought extremely wide - Whether application speculative and exploratory in nature - Rules of Court 2012, O. 24 r. 7A For the plaintiff - Mohd Iskandar Ismail & Muhammad Faris; M/s Basharuddin Iskandar For the defendant - Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo; M/s Kumar Chambers
[2026] CLJU 24	ESWARY ATHIMOOLAM lwn. RAJAKUMARAN KRISHNAN Pemilik berdaftar yang telah bersetuju menjadi pemegang amanah, ke atas suatu hartanah bagi pihak yang telah membiaya pembelian hartanah tersebut, dengan memasuki surat kuasa wakil dan surat ikatan amanah adalah terikat dengan terma-terma dokumen tersebut. Pemilik berdaftar hanya boleh mengelak daripada terikat dengan terma-terma yang telah ditandatanganinya sekiranya wujud faktor frod seperti terdapat salah nyata dalam kandungan dokumen yang ditandatanganinya. Pemilik berdaftar berhak mengemukakan doktrin non est factum, yang mana jika berjaya, akan melepaskan pemilik berdaftar itu daripada terma-terma dalam dokumen yang telah ditandatanganinya. Beban untuk mengemukakan bukti bahawa wujudnya doktrin non est factum adalah terletak atas pemilik berdaftar. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hak milik - Hak milik benefisial - Tuntutan oleh pembiaya pembelian hartanah - Sandaran kepada surat kuasa wakil dan surat ikatan amanah - Pemilik berdaftar gagal hadir ke mahkamah atau membawa saksi ketika bicara - Sama ada pemilik berdaftar hanya memegang hartanah sebagai pemegang amanah konstruktif - Sama ada surat kuasa wakil dan surat ikatan amanah mengiktiraf hak dan kepentingan plaintif terhadap hartanah - Sama ada dakwaan surat kuasa wakil dan surat ikatan amanah diperolehi secara penipuan dibuktikan - Sama ada doktrin non est factum terpakai untuk melepaskan defendan daripada terma-terma dalam dokumen yang ditandatanganinya - Sama ada pembelaan defendan bersifat penafian kosong semata-mata Bagi pihak peguam perayu - Karthigesan Shanmugam; T/n Karthig Shan Bagi pihak peguam responden - Nur Fatin Amirah; T/n Maniam Nair & Co
[2026] CLJU 25	SANDRAMADI D/O ADAIKAN lwn. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH RAUB PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR & YANG LAIN 1. Pihak berkuasa tanah yang diamanahkan untuk mempertahankan kepentingan individu yang memiliki tanah melalui pendaftaran hakmilik wajar mengesahkan bahawa catatan yang terdapat di dalam hakmilik adalah betul dan tepat, di samping segala proses perundangan yang melibatkan tanah tersebut seperti pengambilan tanah seperti yang tercatat pada suratan hakmilik adalah teratur. Dakwaan bahawa wujud kesilapan atau frod di dalam catatan surat hakmilik adalah tidak boleh dipertahankan apabila catatan dilakukan berdasarkan prosedur pengambilan tanah yang diputuskan teratur dan pihak berkuasa tanah kemudiannya mencatatkannya seperti yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang ke dalam suratan hakmilik. 2. Apabila seseorang saksi telah ditetapkan untuk memberikan keterangan, dia hendaklah memberikan keutamaan untuk hadir ke Mahkamah. Saksi sepatutnya memberi keutamaan kepada perbicaraan di Mahkamah. Setelah penangguhan bicara tidak dibenarkan dan kes suatu pihak telah ditutup, maka adalah tidak wajar suatu pembukaan semula kes dibenarkan kelak atas tujuan untuk memanggil saksi yang gagal hadir tersebut supaya diberi peluang untuk memberikan keterangan. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hakmilik - Suratan hakmilik - Kekeliruan dalam catatan suratan hakmilik dengan buku pengukuran tanah - Tindakan terhadap pihak berkuasa tanah - Bahagian tanah dipertikaian - Dakwaan perubahan keluasan tanah ekoran cadangan pengambilan tanah - Sama ada ukuran dan keluasan yang dicatatkan teratur - Sama ada terdapat keterangan jelas yang menunjukkan pemalsuan dokumen - Sama ada catatan defendan di dalam suratan hakmilik dilakukan semasa menjalankan tugas rasmi PROSEDUR SIVIL: Bicara - Pembukaan semula kes - Permohonan defendan untuk membuka semula kes setelah defendan menutup kes - Saksi defendan tidak hadir semasa bicara - Permohonan penangguhan tidak dibenarkan - Sama ada mahkamah boleh menggunakan bidang kuasa sedia ada bagi membuka semula kes defendan - Sama ada saksi yang gagal hadir ke mahkamah wajar diberi peluang untuk memberikan keterangan selepas penutupan kes Bagi pihak plaintif - R. Kengadharan; T/n R. Kengadharan & Co Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Fatin Nadhira Kasim

CLJ 2026 Volume 4 (Part 6)

The plaintiff bears the permanent legal burden of proving their claim. A court may not rule for a plaintiff simply because a defendant's alternative theory or defence remains unproven. Reversing this rule, by requiring a defendant to disprove a claim before the plaintiff meets their initial burden, constitutes a misdirection in law. Additionally, pursuant to O. 40A of the Rules of Court 2012, opinion evidence on specialised or scientific matters is inadmissible unless the witness is formally qualified as an expert.
Langkawi Yacht Club Bhd v. Suzannah Helen Harvey & Anor [2026] 4 CLJ 867 [CA]

EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Legal and evidential burden - Distinction between legal burden of proof and evidential burden of proof - Trial judge reversed trite and settled rule on legal burden of proof - Fate of claim pinned on defendant's capability to prove defence before plaintiffs discharged legal burden - Whether legal burden shifts - Whether defendant's defence could precede plaintiffs' claim - Whether there was failure to discharge legal burden - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 101, 102 & 103

EVIDENCE: Witness - Expert witness - Admissibility - Admissibility of plain witness' opinion evidence on scientific and specialised matters - Whether plain witness limited to testify on matters of fact - Whether plain witness could be accepted as expert - Rules of Court 2012, O. 40A

Azimah Omar FCJ
Wong Kian Kheong JCA
Ismail Brahim JCA

For the appellant - Ranjit Singh, Prisilla Chong Mun Mun & Subbiah Thevarayan; M/s Ranjit Singh & Yeoh
For the respondents - Jeremy M Joseph & Vinodhini Benjamin Samuel; M/s Joseph & Partners

A high legal bar applies to the consolidation of suits involving separate defendants and claims. Where two actions arise from the same factual matrix and series of transactions, consolidation should be ordered provided that the criteria under O. 4 r. 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 are satisfied. Such an order promotes judicial economy and cost-efficiency, as both actions rely on overlapping evidence and the testimony of the same witnesses.
1Malaysia Development Bhd v. Patrick Andrew Marc Mahony & Anor [2026] 4 CLJ 894 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Consolidation of actions - Application for - Whether there were common facts and law - Whether reliefs claimed arose out of same transaction or series of transactions - Whether there was abuse of process - Grounds for consolidation - Whether O. 4 r. 1 of Rules of Court 2012 satisfied

Leong Wai Hong J

For the plaintiff - Lim Chee Wee, Elizabeth Lau, Hazel Siau, Soh Lip Shan, Lynnette Wong & Lee Jie Kai; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
For the 2nd defendant - Christopher Leong Sau Foo, Shamala Devi Balasundaram, Siow Poh Ching, Ranjit Singh Harbinder Singh & Yuki Lim Jieny; M/s Chooi & Company

(i) Section 380 of the National Land Code ('NLC') vests the power to correct errors in documents of title in the land registration authority, not the court. The court's role is confined to determining the underlying facts, while the rectification of the register remains an administrative act to be carried out by the Registrar in accordance with the NLC; (ii) In an application to determine whether two descriptions refer to the same deceased person, the court should ordinarily require, at a minimum, a coherent combination of: (a) an official death or identity document; (b) estate or succession documents linking the deceased to the subject land; (c) title searches reflecting the discrepant entry; and (d) corroborative evidence from individuals with personal knowledge of the relevant property or its history. Declaratory relief may be granted where these evidential strands, taken cumulatively, converge without contradiction and establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the names in question refer to one and the same person.
In Re Mohd Noor Yusof; Applicant [2026] 4 CLJ 914 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Declaratory relief - Land law - Administration of estate of deceased person - Application for declaration that names appearing on death certificate, estate administration documents and land titles, although different, refer to same deceased person - Whether court empowered to rectify errors in documents of title - Distinction between role of land registration authority and court under s. 380 of National Land Cod e - Whether there was convergence between family evidence and official records - Whether different names referred to same individual - National Land Code, s. 380

Raja Segaran S Krishnan JC

For the applicant - Muhammad Qaiyyum Ramlan; Director of Legal Aid Department Malacca

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal for Housing Purchaser Claims ('Tribunal') is strictly contingent upon the accrual of a cause of action under the sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') at the time a claim is filed. Under the prescribed terms of the SPA, a cause of action for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') arises not as a series of continuing daily breaches, but as a single, aggregate entitlement that crystallises only upon the formal delivery of vacant possession. Crucially, vacant possession cannot be legally established unless and until an occupation permit ('OP') has been issued, meaning that mere physical occupation in the absence of an OP does not constitute a valid handover. Where a claim for LAD is lodged before the issuance of an OP and the subsequent accrual of the cause of action, the Tribunal lacks the statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, rendering any resulting award ultra vires.
Konsesi Emas Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal For Housing Purchaser Claims, Sarawak & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 927 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | LAND LAW | STATUTORY INTERPRETATION | WORDS & PHRASES | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Tribunal for Housing Purchaser Claims granting award for liquidated ascertained damages - Delay in delivery of vacant possession - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Whether Tribunal empowered to adjudicate claim before accrual of cause of action - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Ordinance, 2013 (Sarawak) (Cap 69), s. 43(2) - Whether award ultra vires

LAND LAW: Housing developers - Sale and purchase agreement - Delivery of vacant possession - Delay - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Whether cause of action for LAD accrued only upon purchasers taking vacant possession - Whether taking of vacant possession required issuance of occupation permit ('OP') - Effect of physical occupation without OP - Whether LAD represented single aggregate entitlement or continuing daily breaches

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Ordinance, 2013 (Sarawak) (Cap 69), s. 43(2) - 'arising' and 'cause of action' - Whether 'arising' synonymous with 'accrued' in legal context - Whether provisions to be construed together to give effect to legislative intent

WORDS & PHRASES: 'Arising from a sale and purchase agreement' - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Ordinance, 2013 (Sarawak) (Cap 69), s. 43(2) - Whether refers to a matured or accrued cause of action - 'Cause of action' - Whether comes into existence only when all material facts necessary to establish claim occurred

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Natural justice - Procedural fairness - Right to be heard - Alleged breach of natural justice by Tribunal for Housing Purchaser Claims - Burden of proof - Whether applicant given opportunity to present defence - Whether dissatisfaction with merits of decision constitutes breach of natural justice

Wong Siong Tung J

For the plaintiff - William Nee; M/s Huang & Co Advocs
For the defendant - Syed Rezif Afham Wan Ali; FC

In the realm of strata management, a joint management body ('JMB') and a management corporation ('MC') are distinct corporate entities established by statute, specifically the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 and the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA). They possess perpetual succession and the capacity to sue and be sued in their own names. Consequently, for wrongs committed against the JMB or MC, such as the mismanagement of funds or common property, the general principle would suggest that the JMB or MC itself is the proper plaintiff. However, the argument that only the JMB may sue for misfeasance committed by its own members would lead to absurdity and injustice and would render the protections under the SMA nugatory. While allowing every individual owner to sue would lead to fragmented litigation and undermine the authority of the JMB or MC, a derivative action remains the appropriate avenue for aggrieved parcel owners seeking redress on behalf of the body corporate.
Rajendran & Ors v. Badan Pengurusan Bersama The Haven Lakeside Residences & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 955 [HC]

LAND LAW

LAND LAW: Strata title - Joint management body ('JMB') - Breach of statutory and fiduciary duties - Claims by parcel owners against JMB as wrongdoer - Whether derivative action appropriate avenue - Whether parcel owners established clear statutory and equitable right to sue - Whether decision to bypass Commissioner of Buildings and directly approach High Court legally permissible under s. 106(2) of Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') - Whether seriousness of allegations fell outside jurisdiction of Strata Management Tribunal - Whether sinking fund strictly for capital expenses related to 'common property' - Whether expenditure for new facility requires special resolution of parcel owners - Whether fell within category listed under s. 24 of SMA - Whether functions of JMB include managing hotel business

LAND LAW: Strata title - Joint management body ('JMB') - Mixed development including residential parcels and hotel suites - Imposition of varying rates - Whether unfair, inequitable and discriminatory - Whether JMB must apply to Commissioner of Buildings and obtain determination - Whether failure to obtain determination renders imposition of rates unlawful - Whether granting of rent-free leases ultra vires statutory powers of JMB - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 12(1) & (2)

Abdul Wahab Mohamed J

For the plaintiff - Patrick Samuel Joseph Sebastian; M/s Patrick Samuel
For the 1st to 3rd & 5th to 7th defendants - Rabinder Singh Juggeet Singh & Shahinuddin Shariff; M/s Rabin & Assocs
For the 1st, 4th & 8th defendants - Surinder Singh & Eric Clement; M/s Chong Surindar SU & Assocs

(i) Monies held in solicitors' clients' accounts are trust monies belonging to the clients, not the advocate and solicitor. A solicitor cannot claim personal ownership of these funds, and the bank owes a fiduciary obligation to the actual beneficiaries, ie, the clients to safeguard their interests. Consequently, a bank is justified in refusing to honour a solicitor's remittance instructions if the solicitor fails to provide requested documentation or information required; (ii) The protection of legal professional privilege under s. 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 belongs exclusively to the client, not the solicitor. Where a client instructs a solicitor to execute a remittance, that instruction constitutes an implied consent or waiver of privilege regarding the information necessary to facilitate the transaction. Therefore, a solicitor cannot invoke s. 126 to withhold information requested by a bank that is essential for processing the client's own transaction.
Yeoh Jin Aik v. Tan Jin Keat & Anor' [2026] 4 CLJ 986 [HC]

BANKING | EVIDENCE | LEGAL PROFESSION

BANKING: Banks and banking business - Remittance - Foreign currency solicitors' clients' account - Remittance applications by solicitor refused by bank - Inadequate documentation and information - Whether monies in clients' account trust monies - Whether monies belonged to advocate and solicitor - Whether bank assumed fiduciary obligation towards clients as beneficiaries - Whether bank justified in rejecting applications due to incomplete documentation - Whether bank in breach of mandate and instructions - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Financial Services Act 2013

EVIDENCE: Privilege - Legal professional privilege - Professional communication - Information requested by bank to process remittance from solicitors' clients' account - Refusal by bank to honour remittance applications - Inadequate documentation and information - Whether information fell within ambit of s. 126 of Evidence Act 1950 - Whether privilege belonged to solicitor or client - Whether client's instruction to submit remittance application constituted waiver of privilege

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors' clients' account - Nature of funds - Foreign currency solicitors' clients' account - Refusal by bank to honour remittance applications - Inadequate documentation and information - Whether solicitor owner of funds in clients' account - Whether monies in clients' account trust monies

Wendy Ooi Su Ghee J

For the plaintiff - Thayalan, Chong Jun Min & Syifa Irdina Sheikh Zulkifli; M/s Thayalan & Assocs
For the defendants - Lau Kee Sern, Leong Xin Wen & Hooi Welsen; M/s Kee Sern, Siu & Huey
For the intervener - Vivek Sukumaran; M/s Asyraf, Vivek & Wee

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

PERUNDANGAN YANG MENGAWAL SELIA PELABURAN AKAUN EMAS DI MALAYSIA
(LAW AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING GOLD INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS IN MALAYSIA) ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Muhammad Anis bin Mohd Arshad^[i] Ruzian binti Markom^[ii] Asma Hakimah Ab. Halim^[iii] [2026] CLJU(A) xlviii

MENTAL HEALTH LAW IN TRANSITION: AUTONOMY, CAPACITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEMPORARY LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ^{[Read excerpt]}
Nehaluddin Ahmad^[i]Aqilah Walin Ali^[ii] [2026] CLJU(A) xlix

[2026] CLJU(A) xlix

MALAYSIA

MENTAL HEALTH LAW IN TRANSITION: AUTONOMY, CAPACITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEMPORARY LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

Nehaluddin Ahmad^[i]
Aqilah Walin Ali^[ii]

ABSTRACT

The paper analyses the evolution, structure, and contemporary challenges of mental health law, emphasising its interdisciplinary foundations in medicine, ethics, human rights, and public policy. It traces the transition from 19th-century asylum-based regimes to modern rights-oriented frameworks that prioritise community care, patient autonomy, and dignity. Central to the analysis is the relationship between law and ethics, particularly principles of autonomy, informed consent, capacity, and the enduring tension between individual liberty and coercive intervention. The paper examines key international instruments, including the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as normative foundations shaping contemporary legislation. It pays particular attention to vulnerable groups, including children and adolescents, through concepts such as evolving autonomy and Gillick competence, and older persons facing dementia-related capacity issues. Further, the paper explores the interface between mental health and criminal law, addressing forensic psychiatry, criminal responsibility, the insanity defence, and trial competency. Comparative insights from the United Kingdom, United States, India, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam illustrate diverse regulatory approaches. The paper concludes by underscoring the need for rights-based reforms, ethical governance, and strengthened mental healthcare systems.

. . .

[i] LLD Professor of Law, Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Faculty of Law, Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA), Brunei; LLD (Meerut University, India); LLM (IT and Telecom Law) (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom); LLM (Constitutional Law and Administrative Law); MA (Composite History); LLB (Hons) (Lucknow University, India). Email: ahmadnehal@yahoo.com.

[ii] Pursuing PhD, LLB, LLM, Faculty of Law, Sultan Haji Hasanal Bolkiah, Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali, Brunei Darussalam. Email: aqilahwalinali@gmail.com.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 880	Capitation Grant Act 2026	1 April 2026	-	-
ACT 879	Auctioneers Act 1914 (Revised–2026)	25 March 2026 revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 20 March 2026; First enacted in 1914 as Sabah Ordinance No 1 of 1914; First Revision - 1936 (No 1 of 1914 wef 31 December 1936); Second Revision - 1953 (Cap 9 wef 30 June 1953)	-	-
ACT 878	Legal Aid and Public Defence Act 2026	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 877	Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 876	Anti-Bully Act 2026	Not Yet In Force	-	-

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1793	Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 2026	Not Yet In Force	ACT 127
ACT A1792	Supplementary Supply (2025) Act 2026	1 May 2026
ACT A1791	Passports (Amendment) Act 2026	Not Yet In Force	ACT 150
ACT A1790	Immigration (Amendment) Act 2026	Not Yet In Force	ACT 155
ACT A1789	Rukun Tetangga (Amendment) Act 2026	1 April 2026 [PU(B) 90/2026]	ACT 751

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 166/2026	Ministers of The Federal Government (Amendment) Order 2026	8 April 2026	3 December 2025 - subsubparagraphs 2(g)(i), 2(g)(ii), 2(k)(i) and 2(k)(ii); 17 December 2025 - subparagraphs (2)(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(h), 2(i), 2(j), 2(l), 2(m), 2(n), 2(o), 2(p) and (2)(q) and subsubparagraphs 2(g)(iii), 2(g)(iv), 2(g)(v), 2(g)(vi), 2(k)(iii), 2(k)(iv), 2(k)(v) and 2(k)(vi)	PU(A) 27/2023
PU(A) 165/2026	Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) (Amendment) Order 2026	8 April 2026	9 April 2026	PU(A) 210/2018
PU(A) 164/2026	Income Tax (Tour Operator Company) (Exemption) Order 2026	7 April 2026	Year of assessment 2026 to the year of assessment 2027	ACT 53
PU(A) 163/2026	Income Tax (Accelerated Capital Allowance) (Development Cost For Customised Computer Software For The Implementation of Electronic Invoice) Rules 2026	7 April 2026	Year of assessment 2024 to the year of assessment 2027	ACT 53
PU(A) 162/2026	Income Tax (Accelerated Capital Allowance) (Information and Communication Technology Equipment For The Implementation of Electronic Invoice) Rules 2026	7 April 2026	Year of assessment 2024 to the year of assessment 2027	ACT 53

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 174/2026	Notice To Third Parties	13 May 2026	14 May 2026	ACT 613
PU(B) 173/2026	Notice To Third Parties	13 May 2026	14 May 2026	ACT 613
PU(B) 172/2026	Notice To Third Parties	12 May 2026	13 May 2026	ACT 613
PU(B) 171/2026	Notice To Third Parties	11 May 2026	12 May 2026	ACT 613
PU(B) 170/2026	Notice To Third Parties	8 May 2026	9 May 2026	ACT 613

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 27	Akta Agensi Persendirian 1971	AKTA A1782	28 April 2026 [PU(B) 147/2026]	Seksyen 3, 5, 9, 13 and 18A
ACT 27	Private Agencies Act 1971	ACT A1782	28 April 2026 [PU(B) 147/2026]	Sections 3, 5, 9, 13 and 18A
ACT 206	Arms Act 1960 (Revised 1978)	PU(A) 94/2026	21 February 2026	Second Schedule
ACT 751	Rukun Tetangga Act 2012	ACT A1789	1 April 2026 [PU(B) 90/2026]	Sections 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 23
AKTA 751	Akta Rukun Tetangga 2012	AKTA A1789	1 April 2026 [PU(B) 90/2026]	Seksyen 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 17 dan 23

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 173/2022	Perintah Duti Eksais (Kenderaan Bermotor) (Bayaran) 2022	PU(A) 44/2026	1 Februari 2026
PU(A) 173/2022	Excise Duties (Motor Vehicles) (Payment) Order 2022	PU(A) 44/2026	1 February 2026
PU(A) 317/2025	Federal Roads (East Klang Valley Expressway) Order 2025	PU(A) 32/2026	26 January 2026
PU(A) 384/2021	Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) (No. 3) Order 2021	PU(A) 24/2026	15 January 2026 to 8 October 2026
PU(A) 312/2021	Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) (No. 2) Order 2021	PU(A) 23/2026	15 January 2026 to 19 July 2026

To unsubscribe click here