HOME

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

JAGDEEP KAUR UDHAM SINGH v. HALAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
NUR FAUZAH DATO MOKHTAR
AWARD NO. 980 OF 2025 [CASE NO: 11-4-2879-21]
19 JUNE 2025

An employer's unilateral transfer of an employee to a new position for which the employee lacks the necessary experience, skills, or job description, especially without prior discussion, constitutes a fundamental breach of the employment contract, including the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Such a breach amounts to constructive dismissal, provided the employee leaves employment in response to the breach and without undue delay.

SANTOSHKUMAR SUKUMARAN v. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AZMAN ABDULLAH JCA
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JCA
NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05(SH)-497-10-2024]
5 FEBRUARY 2026

The prosecution has a duty to offer all material witnesses to the defence, regardless of its own assessment of that witness's utility or the perceived strength of the accused's case. It is the sole right of the accused – not the prosecution – to determine which witnesses are material to their defence and necessary to raise a reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot pre-emptively filter evidence based on its own opinion of relevance; the credibility and weight of the defence's evidence are matters strictly for the court to adjudicate.

MAGNUM CONSORTIUM SDN BHD v. 3Q RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD
HIGH COURT MALAYA, PULAU PINANG
CHOONG YEOW CHOY J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: PA-24NCVC-303-03-2025]
2 DECEMBER 2025

Even with the litigant's best endeavours in preparing or drafting the final judgment or order for the court's seal, inadvertent mistakes may still occur. The law, recognising this reality, confers upon the courts a limited power to correct accidental slips or omissions in a judgment or order without the need to re-open the entire case. An amendment may be granted where the mistake sought to be corrected is genuine, not misleading and does not cause any reasonable doubt or prejudice. Such a correction falls properly within the court's jurisdiction under O. 20 r. 11 of the Rules of Court 2012.

KINTA RECOVERY & RECYCLE SDN BHD v. PENGARAH KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA, NEGERI PERAK & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
MOSES SUSAYAN J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: AA-22NCVC-25-04-2022]
26 JANUARY 2026

(i) Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with the law. Even where legislation confers wide powers on public authorities, those powers remain subject to constitutional limits. The validity of an administrative action depends on strict compliance with its governing statutory authority; once these limits are exceeded, any resulting deprivation of property is unlawful and constitutionally defective; (ii) Where evidence reveals the premature seizure of goods, reliance on an inapplicable statute and prolonged interference of property, the authorities have strayed beyond their lawful mandate. Such actions constitute an unlawful exercise of public power that deprives a party of possession and causes substantial loss. Damages must flow where public power has been unlawfully exercised.

e-Judgment Today

NOMALAN RAMAYAH v. PP & OTHER APPLICATIONS
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
WAN AHMAD FARID SALLEH CJ
AZIZAH NAWAWI CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK)
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI FCJ
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPLICATIONS NOS: 05(RJ)-1-03-2025(A),
05(RJ)-2-03-2025(N), 05(RJ)-3-03-2025(J),
05(RJ)-4-03-2025(J), 05(RJ)-5-03-2025(J),
05(RJ)-6-03-2025(J) & 05(RJ)-7-03-2025J)]
21 APRIL 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (6)

Abstract – (i) The detention of a child offender 'at the pleasure' of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler, or Yang di-Pertua Negeri under s. 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 ('CA') is constitutional and does not violate art. 5(1) of the Federal Constitution ('FC'). Since the detention is prescribed by a validly enacted law and follows due process of trial, it satisfies the constitutional requirement that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty save 'in accordance with law'; (ii) The exclusion of child offenders from the review mechanisms provided under the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 and the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023, which allow adults to commute death sentences to determinate prison terms, does not violate art. 8 of the FC; (iii) Child offenders have exclusive statutory avenues for release not available to adults. Specifically, s. 97(4) and (5) of the CA and the Prison Regulations 2000 provide for yearly reviews by the Board of Visiting Justices.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence – Review – Application to review sentence under r. 137 of Rules of the Federal Court 1995 – Child offenders convicted of murder, drug trafficking and kidnapping – Sentenced to detention at pleasure of Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri under s. 97(2) of Child Act 2001 – Whether detention indefinite and without remedy – Whether introduction of Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 and Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023 created 'special circumstances' – Whether there was violation of arts. 5(1) and 8 of Federal Constitution – Whether alternative remedies available to applicants

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties – Right to life and personal liberty – Detention of child offenders at pleasure of Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri – Whether s. 97(2) of Child Act 2001 violated art. 5(1) of Federal Constitution – Whether sentence passed in accordance with laws – Whether deprivation of liberty lawful

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties – Equality – Equal protection of law – Discrimination – Detention of child offenders at pleasure of Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri – Comparison between child offenders and adult offenders – Whether exclusion of child offenders from Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 and Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023 discriminatory – Whether based on reasonable classification and intelligible differentia – Whether rational relation to object of rehabilitation and re-assimilation – Federal Constitution, art. 8

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Power of pardon – Prerogative of Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri – Whether decisions on pardon and duration of detention under s. 97(2) of Child Act 2001 justiciable – Federal Constitution, art. 42

LATEST FC/CA

Nomalan Ramayah v. PP & Other Appeals [2026] CLJU 1171 [FC]
Ism Sendirian Berhad v. Queensway Nominees (Asing) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2026] CLJU 1170 [FC]
Evyap Sabun Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Bg Oleochemicals Sl [2026] CLJU 1089 [CA]
Abdul Mohd Desa lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2026] CLJU 1058 [CA]
PP v. Azman Abdul Hamid & Yang Lain [2026] CLJU 1090 [2026] CLJU 1090 [CA]
PP v. Azman Abdul Hamid & Yang Lain [2026] CLJU 1090 [2026] CLJU 1090 [CA]
Datuk Dr Yunus Gul Alif Gul v. Sim Kuan Yee & Anor [2026] CLJU 997 [CA]
Mohd Izad Matap v. PP & Other Appeals [2026] CLJU 920 [CA]
Loke Seen Yoong v. PP [2026] CLJU 919 [CA]
Veronica Sainik @ Ronald v. Meluha Life Sciences Sdn Bhd & Ors [2026] CLJU 923 [CA]

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“It must be understood that the obligation or duty to pay the maintenance charges and the sinking fund contributions arises from the statutory provisions, in particular, s. 16 of the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 and s. 25 of the Strata Management Act 2013. The obligation is not contractual or arises from the determination at the first AGM. The first AGM only determined the rate, not the obligation to pay. The JMB must manage the common property for all parcels. This is because the parcels exist within one development area, and the developer is the owner of the unsold parcels.”

“This means that the parcel owners, whether residential or commercial, are liable to pay regardless of whether they attended or were absent at the first AGM, and whether they voted or objected to the same. Accordingly, the fact that when the resolutions were made at the first AGM, the commercial parcel owners did not attend and had no opportunity to vote on the resolutions, does not at all mean that they are exempted from the obligation to pay.” - Per Ong Chee Kwan JCA in Badan Pengurusan Bersama Gurney Paragon Residental v. Hunza Properties (Gurney) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 351

“Both counsel brought to bear considerable industry and skill in navigating what is, at its heart, a modest domestic dispute but one which raised questions of some technical and statutory complexity. Their written and oral submissions were thorough and well-crafted, their cross-examinations were pointed without being discourteous, and the quiet wit that each occasionally introduced into the proceedings, not least when this Court itself had cause to observe the alarming pace of inflation in kitchen cabinet prices and the law of Newton's physics, served as a timely reminder that the pursuit of justice need not always be a humourless endeavour. This Court is grateful for their assistance.” - Per Roz Mawar Rozain J in Leng Wie Mun v. Saeed Ali Magad [2026] CLJU 663

“The true nature and context of the Derbyshire principle is res ipsa loquitur from the parties of the English case itself. The case of Derbyshire involved a Local Authority (not an individual person) claiming for defamation. There are no fact, context, and reason for the House of Lords in Derbyshire to consider whether or not any individual person holding governmental office may or may not maintain a defamation action. The House of Lords was posed with the question, whether or not a Government (the Derbyshire County Council) as an elected body can sue its own electorate for defamation. And the House of Lords answered that question in the negative (in that a governmental body cannot sue its citizens for defamation). Somehow, over the years, and through many attempts at legal acrobatics, the true and simplistic essence of the Derbyshire principle had been lost in translation. On the extreme contrary to this misconception, the House of Lords made a clear and express finding that the inhibition against governmental bodies does not apply to prohibit individuals in governmental offices from maintaining a defamation action:

A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of COUNCILLORS which represents the controlling party, or on the EXECUTIVES who carry on the day-to-day management of its affairs. If the INDIVIDUAL reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can HIMSELF bring proceedings for defamation.

(emphasis added)”

“However, in the same manner the House of Lords in Derbyshire was aware some 33 years ago, we are equally aware that attacks against the Government can at times fall or slip into ad hominem and personal attacks against persons in office (not just the Government), be it on personal matters or in his or her exercise in office. Especially considering the sensationalist journalism and the boom of social media and the internet in modern times (coupled with Malaysia's decades of political divide and politicking on race, ethnicity, and religion), it is infinitely more compelling for prominent individuals from competing political spectrums to throw underhanded jabs against persons in office and for the Malaysian people to receive and spread the same attacks like wildfire. Thus, aside from the importance of freedom of speech and the liberty to criticise the Government, it is equally important that the court must remain vigilant to not allow loose-lipped defamation and slander to be thrown at the faces of individuals in governmental positions or offices.” - Per Azimah Omar FCJ in Yeoh Tseow Suan v. Musa Hassan [2026] 3 CLJ 593; [2026] CLJU 82

UPDATED
( as of 27 April 2026)

ACT 27
Private Agencies Act 1971
ACT 206
Arms Act 1960 (Revised 1978)
ACT 751
Rukun Tetangga Act 2012
PU(A) 221/2023
Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Levy Systems in Respect of Insurer Members) Regulations 2023
PU(A) 564/1996
Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Butterworth–kulim Expressway) Order 1996

REVOKED
(as of 24 February 2026)

PU(A) 173/2022
Excise Duties (Motor Vehicles) (Payment) Order 2022
PU(A) 317/2025
Federal Roads (East Klang Valley Expressway) Order 2025
PU(A) 384/2021
Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) (No. 3) Order 2021
PU(A) 312/2021
Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) (No. 2) Order 2021
PU(A) 469/2021
Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Order 2021

PRINCIPAL

ACT 880
Capitation Grant Act 2026
ACT 879
Auctioneers Act 1914 (Revised—2026)
ACT 878
Legal Aid And Public Defence Act 2026
ACT 877
Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2026
ACT 876
Anti-Bully Act 2026

AMENDING

ACT A1793
Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 2026
ACT A1792
Supplementary Supply (2025) Act 2026
ACT A1791
Passports (Amendment) Act 2026
ACT A1790
Immigration (Amendment) Act 2026
ACT A1789
Rukun Tetangga (Amendment) Act 2026

PUA

PU(A) 131/2026
Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2026
PU(A) 130/2026
Local Speed Limit (Federal Roads) (Specified Time Prohibition) (No. 2) Order 2026
PU(A) 129/2026
National Speed Limit (Temporary Cessation) (No. 2) Order 2026
PU(A) 128/2026
Customs (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2026
PU(A) 127/2026
Customs Duties (Goods Under The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement) (Amendment) Order 2026

PUB

PU(B) 151/2026
Return And Statements Of Election Expenses
PU(B) 150/2026
Return And Statements Of Election Expenses
PU(B) 149/2026
Notice Regarding The Certification And Inspection Of The Supplementary Electoral Roll For The Month Of March 2026
PU(B) 148/2026
Notice To Third Parties
PU(B) 147/2026
Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation

BILLS, etc.

LEGAL NEWS

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

MEDIATION IN MODERN CIVIL JUSTICE:
DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONS, JUDICIAL DIRECTION AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES BETWEEN ENGLAND AND WALES AND MALAYSIA*
by Steven Perian KC**

ABSTRACT

Mediation has evolved from a voluntary adjunct to litigation into an increasingly embedded component of modern civil justice systems. This article examines the doctrinal foundations and practical operation of mediation, with particular focus on its integration within the procedural frameworks of England and Wales and Malaysia. It analyses the distinction between mediation and adjudication, the respective roles of mediators and parties, and the growing expectation that parties engage in mediation as part of responsible litigation conduct.

The article considers the development of judicial approaches to mediation, including the emergence of court-directed alternative dispute resolution in England and Wales following Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, and contrasts this with the procedurally structured but non-coercive framework established in Malaysia under Arahan Amalan Ketua Hakim Negara Bilangan 2 Tahun 2022 (the 2022 Practice Direction). It further evaluates the cost implications, structural advantages, and limitations of mediation, and examines its strategic significance in contemporary legal practice.

The article concludes that while both jurisdictions recognise the value of mediation, they differ in the degree of judicial intervention employed to promote engagement. The English model reflects qualified compulsion supported by cost consequences, whereas the Malaysian model emphasises structured facilitation while preserving party autonomy.

GLOBAL NEWS

ENGLISH TEXT OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PREVAILS UNTIL AGONG SAYS OTHERWISE, PUTRAJAYA TELLS COURTS

The English version of the Federal Constitution is the nation’s authoritative legal document until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong declares otherwise, Putrajaya has asserted in its official defence against a lawsuit seeking to elevate the Bahasa Melayu version.

The government stated that the Agong has not yet prescribed the Bahasa Melayu text as supreme under Article 160B of the constitution, which allows for such a declaration to be made, Free Malaysia Today reported.

It cited two landmark Federal Court rulings in the cases of Indira Gandhi and Loh Siew Hong as binding precedents that have already settled the matter.

“The English version of the constitution is the one that prevails,” the government said in its statement of defence.

FORMER FEDERAL COURT JUDGE NALLINI PATHMANATHAN: LAWYERS SHOULD DO MORE ‘PRO BONO’ WORK SO MORE MALAYSIANS CAN ACCESS JUSTICE

Lawyers should be encouraged to do free legal work to help Malaysians who cannot afford legal fees get access to justice, former Federal Court judge Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan said. She highlighted the importance of legal aid for those who face financial challenges in going to the courts. “That’s a hurdle, that’s why legal aid comes in, a lot of lawyers do work pro bono, and all of that should be encouraged greatly,” she said in a recent interview with Malay Mail. In her August 2021 paper titled “Access to Justice in the Time of Covid-19 Pandemic from the Judiciary’s Perspective”, she highlighted how there are certain groups who cannot afford to hire a private lawyer but also do not qualify to receive free legal aid from the government or Malaysian Bar.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING DOCUMENT AND CANNOT REMAIN STATIC — HAFIZ HASSAN

The Federal Constitution is a living document. It cannot therefore remain static.

Changes or amendments to the provisions of the Federal Constitution are inevitable, as duly recognised by Federal Court Judge Raja Azlan Shah (as His Highness then was) in the Federal Court case of Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] in the following words:

“[T]he framers of our Constitution prudently realised that future context of things and experience would need a change in the Constitution, and they, accordingly, armed Parliament with ‘power of formal amendment’.

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

e-Judgment Today

LATEST FC/CA

JUDICIAL QUOTES

LEGISLATION UPDATES

LEGAL NEWS

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

GLOBAL NEWS

Quick Links

Resource Centre

BULLETINS

CLJ ESSENTIAL PLUS