HOME

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

NIRVANA JALIL GHANI v. ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES BOARD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD ZAKHI MOHD DAUD
AWARD NO. 532 OF 2025 [CASE NO: 5-4-2238-21]
16 APRIL 2025

An international organisation does not automatically enjoy immunity from legal process in employment disputes, particularly claims of constructive dismissal emanating from breaches of the employment agreement. Such immunity is not absolute and requires the organisation to demonstrate that the legal action impedes its core functions or is necessary for its independence and neutrality. Claims relating to an employee’s personal rights under an employment contract, such as the agreed salary and responsibilities, fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court unless explicitly curtailed by statute.

PP & ORS v. WONG ONG HUA & ANOR
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA; SEE MEE CHUN JCA; MOHAMED ZAINI MAZLAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(A)-66-02-2023]
18 DECEMBER 2024

Extradition proceedings, conducted pursuant to s. 4 read with s. 20 of the Extradition Act 1992, do not constitute an exercise of judicial power. Therefore, the involvement of the Minister of Home Affairs in directing the application of s. 20 and the Sessions Court's role in these proceedings do not violate the doctrine of separation of powers under art. 121(1) of the Federal Constitution.

AMINAH AHMAD (MENYAMAN ATAS KAPASITI PERIBADINYA DAN BAGI PIHAK 56 PESARA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM) v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: WA-25-15-01-2024]
16 JANUARY 2025

Pension adjustments under the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 are linked to salary revisions for serving Government employees. When serving Government employees receive a salary revision, pensioners are also entitled to a corresponding adjustment to their pensions. Service circulars are evidence to determine whether salary revisions have occurred. Mere enhancements or restructuring of salary scales, without actual salary increases, do not constitute salary revisions for pension adjustment purposes. A clear and unconditional salary adjustment, however, in this case a 'Kenaikan Gaji Tahunan (KGT)', constitutes a salary revision that triggers corresponding pension adjustments.

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SELAYANG v. SURESH SUBRAMANIAM
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ; AB KARIM AB JALIL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(f)-20-06-2023(B)]
20 FEBRUARY 2025

The duty of care beholden upon a solicitor is not contingent upon him being paid for his services by the client. Therefore, even if such a service is given pro bono, that duty remains and, a breach thereof would render the solicitor liable. The solicitor must, at all material times, exercise reasonable skill and care in securing and preserving the client's interest.

e-Judgment Today

TAN LAY EAN v. KENNETH YOONG KEN CHINSON ST JAMES & ANOR
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA
CHOO KAH SING JCA
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(A)-1522-09-2023]
1 MARCH 2025
[2025] CLJ JT (4)

(i) An advocate and solicitor's action of making a written complaint directly to a presiding judge of an ongoing litigation about the opponent litigant, which might prejudice and influence the mind of the presiding judge, ought to be frowned upon. It would amount to 'obstructing' the court in administering fair justice to the litigants as well as breed an unhealthy practice in the legal profession. If there is any complaint against any actions taken in a court case, the complaint ought to be made to the firm of solicitors representing a litigant; (ii) Although a right to be heard ought to be accorded to an advocate and solicitor before the Disciplinary Board ('DB') metes out its decision for an adverse punishment to be imposed on an advocate and solicitor, a mere breach of a right to be heard is in itself insufficient for the court to set aside an entire decision of a DB or overturn a court's decision when the breach is of no significance or is not serious such as to have impact on the outcome of the DB's final decision.

RAH v. RAL
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
EVROL MARIETTE PETERS J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24F-190-07-2024]
1 MARCH 2025
[2025] CLJ JT (3)

(i) Embryos, while not legal persons, are not to be treated as ordinary property that can be freely sold, transferred, or disposed of like other assets. Embryos should not be divided as part of matrimonial assets in a divorce or separation, as in this case, without careful consideration of the ethical and moral implications involved. In the absence of a clear agreement between parties regarding the fate of frozen embryos post-divorce, the court will balance the parties' rights. In the case at hand, (a) the applicant's right to procreate was balanced against the respondent's right not to be compelled into parenthood; and (b) the party who primarily bears the financial responsibility for preserving the embryos was granted control, subject to certain conditions; (ii) Monthly child maintenance is determined based on the child's reasonable needs, considering the parents' financial capabilities. Lump sum child maintenance is not permitted under s. 19A of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961.

MOHD RIZA MAT RANI & ORS v. ZURICH GENERAL TAKAFUL MALAYSIA BHD & ANOR
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; MARIANA YAHYA JCA; LIM CHONG FONG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCC)(A)-560-03-2022]
4 OCTOBER 2024
[2025] CLJ JT (2)

Third-party coverage for motor vehicles under the Road Transport Act 1987 ('RTA') is not merely a contractual liability but a statutory one. The compulsory insurance policy regime under s. 96 of the RTA seeks to protect the coverage of risks to innocent third-party road users by insurers who had underwritten those risks. Breaches of any term of the insurance policy that may affect liability between the insured and the insurer will not affect any innocent third-party road users who suffered personal injuries because of an accident.

ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE v. ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABANG ISKANDAR PCA; ABU BAKAR JAIS FCJ; HANIPAH FARIKULLAH FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 01(i)-31-12-2023(W) & 02(i)-66-12-2023(W)]
13 FEBRUARY 2025
[2025] CLJ JT (1)

(i) The immunity from suit and from other legal process, in para. 1 of the First Schedule to the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992 ('IOPIA') conferred upon the Asian International Arbitration Centre ('AIAC') as an international organisation, under the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration regulations, is applicable to render the AIAC immune from judicial review, of acts and decisions made by the AIAC in its capacity as the domestic and statutory adjudication authority under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA'); (ii) The IOPIA and the CIPAA do not oust the High Court's inherent powers in judicial review proceedings; (iii) There is no necessity to draw distinction on the capacity of the AIAC, either as an international arbitral institution or the statutory adjudication authority, before the AIAC is entitled to enjoy the immunity conferred under the IOPIA and the CIPAA.

LATEST FC/CA

Mohd Zulhaimy Mohd Jani lwn. PP & Rayuan Yang Lain [2025] CLJU 827 [CA]
Weng Lee Granite Quarry Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah Pulau Pinang [2025] CLJU 826 [CA]
Sua Lay lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2025] CLJU 828 [CA]
Low See Leong lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2025] CLJU 823 [CA]
Baskaran Govindasamy & Ors v. Chiew Yit Kin [2025] CLJU 761 [CA]
Wawasan Raya (M) Sdn. Bhd & Ors. v. Marc Service Residence Management Corporation [2025] CLJU 760 [CA]
Leftenan Kolonel Shaifullizan Abd Aziz & Ors v. Muhammad Maliki Abdul Halim & Another Appeal [2025] CLJU 822 [CA]
Zali Saad & Yang Lain lwn. PP [2025] CLJU 697 [CA]
The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad v. Aideah Communication Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 820 [FC]
Tan Tai Kwan lwn. PP [2025] CLJU 698 [CA]

JUDICIAL QUOTES

In the development of law on the interpretation of statute, 'mischief rule' is considered as a canon of interpretation. Although rarely used, much of the “mischief” can be discerned in the preamble of the statute. In Re Application Of Tan Boon Liat v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [1976] CLJU 126; [1976] 1 LNS 126; [1976] 2 MLJ 83, Abdoolcader J said that: “The preamble undoubtedly throws light on the intent and design of the enacting authority and indicates the scope and purpose of the legislation itself but it should not be read as a part of a particular section of that written law.” Be that as it may, s. 15 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 now provides that the preamble shall be construed and have effect as if it were a part of the Act. In addition to the usage of preambles, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) in Citibank Bhd v. Mohamad Khalid Farzalur Rahaman & Ors [2000] 3 CLJ 739 stated that the courts have in recent years extended the rule beyond the common law position at the time of the passing of an Act to include “the whole state of the law at the time an Act was passed to see the mischief it sought to cure.” Consequently, the mischief rule has been extended and is nowadays known as a purposive approach. - Per Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JCA in Intisari Mulia Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Tuv Sud (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2025] 5 CLJ 46

“Judges are of course by no means infallible, but care should be taken by counsel in criticising the decisions of any judge, even in circumstances where an appeal is being mounted against the decision of the judge in question. Criticism must be measured and grounded with a basis in fact or principle. To charge the High Court with misunderstanding a party's case when that argument had not been raised before the High Court could potentially amount to misleading the appellate court. We see no reason why, in the appropriate case, a citation for contempt should not be raised against counsel.” - Per Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA in Suriwong International Sdn Bhd v. Menteri Kewangan Malaysia & Ors [2025] CLJU 685

“Based on our reading of s. 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA 1976) in its whole context, it is apparent that under s. 4 of the TCPA 1976, the words “may” and “shall” are repeatedly used in different and distinct provisions. It is clear that when the provision refers to the functions of the first respondent under the TCPA 1976, the word “shall” is used, whereas the word “may” is used when the provision refers to the exercise of those functions.”

“To further illustrate, we say that it is one of the mandatory functions of the first respondent to regulate, control, plan, and coordinate all development activities in the state and in so doing, the first respondent has the discretion to perform any other functions that are supplemental, incidental, or consequential thereto as may be necessary or expedient to carry out its functions under the TCPA 1976, including but not limited to, holding a local inquiry or hearing.”

“In our view, there is nothing in the judgment of the Federal Court in Sunrise Garden’s case to suggest that the refusal or failure of the first respondent to call for a local inquiry or hearing on the rezoning of the subject land was inconsistent with the object, purpose and fundamental aspect of the TCPA 1976.”

“For the above reasons, we disagree with the appellant and hold that there was no apparent need for the first respondent to include public participation through a local inquiry or hearing in determining the third respondent’s application for rezoning the subject land. We found no merit in the appellant’s first point.” - Per Hashim Hamzah JCA in Tang Heng Lut v. Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Pulau Pinang & Ors [2025] 4 CLJ 445

UPDATED
( as of 07 May 2025)

ACT 371
Registration of Pharmacists Act 1951 (Revised 1989)
ACT 342
Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988
SWK. CAP. 76 (1958 ED.)
Labour Ordinance Sarawak
SABAH CAP. 67
Labour Ordinance
ACT 707
Labuan Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2010

REVOKED
(as of 14 March 2025)

PU(A) 183/2009
Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009
PU(A) 231/2009
Universiti Malaysia Pahang (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009
PU(A) 181/2008
Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 2008
PU(A) 347/2009
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009
PU(A) 221/1999
Universiti Utara Malaysia (Discipline of Students) Rules 1999

PRINCIPAL

ACT 864
Data Sharing Act 2025
ACT 863
Measures For The Collection, Administration And Enforcement Of Tax Act 2024
ACT 862
Finance Act 2024
ACT 861
Energy Efficiency And Conservation Act 2024
ACT 860
Malaysia Border Control And Protection Agency Act 2024

AMENDING

ACT A1759
Labuan Limited Partnerships And Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1758
Labuan Foundations (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1757
Labuan Trusts (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1756
Labuan Companies (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1755
Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2025

PUA

PU(A) 149/2025
Income Tax (Exemption) Order 2025 (Amendment) Order 2025
PU(A) 148/2025
Income Tax (Determination Of Chargeable Income Of An Individual In Respect Of Dividend) Rules 2025
PU(A) 147/2025
Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2025
PU(A) 146/2025
Ministers Of The Federal Government (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2025
PU(A) 145/2025
Road Transport (Prohibition Of Use Of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 6) Order 2025

PUB

PU(B) 191/2025
Appointment Under Subsection 6a(1a)
PU(B) 190/2025
Notification Of Value Of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12
PU(B) 189/2025
Appointment Of Gaming Expert
PU(B) 188/2025
Notice To Third Parties
PU(B) 187/2025
Notice Of Affirmative Final Determination Of An Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard To Imports Of Flat-Rolled Products Of Iron Or Non-Alloy Steel Of A Width Of 600mm Or More, Clad, Plated Or Coated With Tin (Electrolytic Tinplate Or Tinplate) Originating Or Exported From The People'S Republic Of China, The Republic Of India, Japan And The Republic Of Korea

BILLS, etc.

LEGAL NEWS

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

'THE STATE OF THE ILLEGALITY DEFENCE IN SINGAPORE'*

PEECH AT THE 8TH JUDICIAL SEMINAR ON COMMERCIAL LITIGATION⁺
by Justice Goh Yihan**

Introduction

1. At risk of over-simplification, the debate in the law of illegality broadly comes down to a choice between a discretionary approach and a rule-based approach. The majority in the UK Supreme Court case of Patel v. Mirza selected the former approach. In contrast, the Singapore approach following the Court of Appeal decision of Ochroid Trading Ltd v. Chua Siok Lui is a more limited discretionary one.

Structure of presentation

2. My paper traces the recent developments in the illegality defence within Singapore law before setting out some outstanding issues for consideration. In the next 23 mins or so, I will make four main points: (1) recent developments of the illegality defence in Singapore, (2) the differences between the Singapore approach and that of the majority in Patel, (3) the potential application of the illegality defence as developed in Ochroid to different areas of private law, and (4) some further observations.

TOWARDS IMPROVING THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASEAN: THE WAY FORWARD
by Ferlyn Leong Phui Mun^[i] Professor Dr Tie Fatt Hee^[ii]

This article offers a critical analysis of the protection of the human rights system in ASEAN. It aims to provide an overview of the substantive and procedural limitations of the ASEAN human rights protection instruments and mechanisms. The author argues that ASEAN lacks regional standardisation and offers weak protection mandates to address violations when it comes to basic protection of human rights. This article also considers and acknowledges the absence of a judicial body to hear complaints and issue binding remedies. Despite the various identified limitations, this article will recommend alternative solutions to existing problems and suggest changes to the existing instruments (regional and international) and mechanisms that might accommodate the improvement of human rights protection in the ASEAN intergovernmental organisation model.

MALAYSIA AGREEMENT 1963 (MA63) IN THE CONSTITUTION:
BROKEN PROMISES OR FORGOTTEN RIGHTS
by Alexis Victor Law^[i] Emir Erfanuriman bin A Razak^[ii] Abang Ikhbal Abang Bolhil^[iii]

ABSTRACT

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was intended to guarantee equal partnership between Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak. However, decades of policy decisions and constitutional amendments have led to political, economic, and fiscal disparities, particularly for Sabah and Sarawak.

The erosion of Sabah and Sarawak's parliamentary representation has weakened their political influence. Additionally, the Petroleum Development Act 1974 transferred control over oil and gas resources to Petronas, depriving the two States of their rightful share of revenues, as well as overriding the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958. This has led to long-standing demands for higher oil royalties and greater regulatory autonomy, particularly through Petros in Sarawak. Furthermore, the federal government's failure to conduct mandatory financial reviews under Article 112D resulted in Sabah being deprived of its 40% net revenue entitlement for 47 years, prompting legal challenges from the Sabah Law Society (SLS).

This paper argues that meaningful reforms are necessary to restore East Malaysia's constitutional rights. Key recommendations include amending Article 46 to reinstate one-third of parliamentary representation, honouring the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958, supporting Petros as Sarawak's sole gas aggregator, and enforcing periodic financial reviews under Article 112D. The resolution of these issues is crucial to ensuring fairness and sustainable relations within Malaysia.

GLOBAL NEWS

GAMBLING DEBTS NOT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE IN M’SIA, FEDERAL COURT RULES

The apex court rules that transactions premised on gambling activities are against public policy and are illegal, null, and void.

A gambling debt is not legally enforceable in Malaysia on grounds of public policy, the Federal Court has ruled. In delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Nordin Hassan noted that the government had repeatedly and firmly voiced its stance against gambling in Parliament on grounds that the public derives no benefit from it.

BALANCING THE SUB JUDICE RULE AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION &NDASH; RAJAN NAVARATNAM

Globally, there is an unfettered right of access to court proceedings by the public, which is consilient with the principle of open justice as it is regarded as an essential tenet of any justice system to guarantee public confidence, independence, and accountability in the administration of justice. In Malaysia, Section 15 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 states that all civil and criminal matters shall be deemed to be open and accessible to the public. Journalists are often keen to report on cases that are newsworthy and those that garners public interest wherein they act as an intermediary between the public and the courts.

LORD DENNING - A PHENOMENON HTTPS://WWW.LIVELAW.IN/ARTICLES/LORD-DENNING-LIFE-AND-HIS-IMPACT-ON-COMMON-LAW-DEVELOPMENT-251353

To generations who have passed their lives in the law his is truly clarum et venerabile nomen. Lord Denning was a colossus who strode the judicial landscape in the second half of the last century shedding lambent light on ticklish legal corners and illuminating the legal and judicial landscape with his effulgence. He was unique. His tenure as a judge expanded the universe of judicial discourse. This year 2024 marks his 125th birth anniversary (January 23) and today, March 5 is his 25th death anniversary. It is appropriate that we remember him, draw inspiration from his life and work and salute his memory.

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