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.

ATOMY MALAYSIA SDN BHD v. FIRDAUS WONG WAI HUNG
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ARZIAH MOHAMED APANDI JC
[CIVIL SUIT: WA-23CY-32-05-2021]
13 JANUARY 2026

This case sits at a complex intersection of corporate law, defamation law, religious freedom and freedom of expression. It raises crucial questions about the extent to which a wholly-owned subsidiary can or should be insulated from reputational association with its parent company's controversial activities. The law of defamation exists to protect reputation. But reputation must be based on reality. In a democratic society that values both religious freedom and freedom of expression, religious teachers must be able to guide their communities on matters affecting religious practice. When a company's corporate structure and financial relationships create religious implications for believers, discussion of those implications is not defamation but necessary public discourse.

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.

e-Judgment Today

NG KIAN TEIK V. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AZMI ARIFFIN JCA
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ JCA
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: A-05A(H)-538-10-2025]
20 APRIL 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (7)

Abstract – In passing a sentence where the mandatory punishment of whipping is barred by the operation of s. 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the correct approach to be adopted by the courts is: (i) the trial court shall pass sentence of imprisonment on the offender as it would in any other cases of similar offence where there is no such bar; (ii) a decision to enhance the sentence of imprisonment in lieu of whipping must be based on the proper exercise of judicial discretion and not as a rule; (iii) a decision to enhance the term of an imprisonment term must be considered based on the facts and relevant aggravating factors of the case and not driven merely by the need to compensate for the exempted punishment; and (iv) the trial court should take a two-step process in making that decision: (a) whether an enhanced term of imprisonment is appropriate after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors; and (b) if an enhanced term of imprisonment is found to be appropriate, what would then be a just and adequate enhanced term of imprisonment commensurate with the offence.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing – Principles – Enhancement of sentence to compensate for exemption of whipping – Exemption from whipping for male convicts of more than 50 years of age under s. 289 of Criminal Procedure Code – Whether enhancement of sentence to be based on aggravating factors – Whether driven by need to compensate for exempted punishment – Whether trial judge adequately considered all mitigating factors – Whether enhancement of sentence caused prejudice to accused person

LATEST FC/CA

Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) v. Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak & Anor [2026] CLJU 1286 [FC]
Mohd Helmi Anuar Mohd Kassim v. PP & Other Appeals [2026] CLJU 1285 [FC]
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]
Peps-Jv (Melaka) Sdn Bhd v. Vmg Transport (M) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2026] CLJU 1191 [CA]
Ng Kian Teik v. PP [2026] CLJU 1169 [CA]
Mohd Jurib Mohamad Naib v. PP [2026] CLJU 1137 [CA]
Chandrasekar Krishnamoorthy v. PP [2026] CLJU 1113 [CA]
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]

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“We find s. 103EA of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) clearly sets out that a party dissatisfied with a DB or DC decision is entitled to lodge a formal written objection within 14 days of the impugned decision. The DB, however, is empowered to proceed with the hearing until it is finished, even when an objection is raised. This section falls within the disciplinary framework for advocates and solicitors, alongside other sections, including s. 103D of the LPA (Board's consideration of reports) and s. 103E of the LPA (appeals from the Board's decisions). The appellant must comply with the procedures set out in the LPA and exhaust all remedies within the disciplinary framework before seeking a judicial intervention;”

“The learned HCJ was correct in holding that the DC's dismissal of the plaintiff's objections was not a final decision, as the DB could still affirm or reverse the DC's recommendation (s. 103EA of the LPA). It was rightly concluded that the finding by the DC is not a final decision (s. 103C of the LPA) as opposed to a determination by the DB (s. 103D of the LPA) arising from the recommendation of the DC after the conclusion of the inquiry;”

“In light of the foregoing, we concur with the learned HCJ's observation that the appellant's attempt to bypass the DB's mechanism was premature and constituted an abuse of process;” – Per Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JCA in How Chee Hong v. Kan Weng Hin & Ors [2026] 4 CLJ 746

“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

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) 140/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 6) Order 2026
PU(A) 139/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 5) Order 2026
PU(A) 138/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2026
PU(A) 137/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 3) Order 2026
PU(A) 136/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2026

PUB

PU(B) 167/2026
Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose
PU(B) 166/2026
Exemption Under Subsection 2a(2)
PU(B) 165/2026
Notification Of Registration Of New Plant Variety And Grant Of Breeder'S Right
PU(B) 164/2026
Notice To Third Parties
PU(B) 163/2026
Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose

BILLS, etc.

LEGAL NEWS

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

OFFERING OF SHARIAH-COMPLIANT CRYPTO ASSETS IN MALAYSIA:
LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
by Muhammad Afif bin Che Had^[i] Nor Aqilah Binti Mohamad Zaki^[ii]

Malaysia's Islamic Capital Market ('ICM') has evolved into a cornerstone of the national financial system, reaching RM2.7 trillion and accounting for approximately 64% of the country's total capital market as of the end of 2025.^[1] The Securities Commission Malaysia ('SC'), through its Capital Market Masterplan 2026–2030 ('CMP 2026–2030'), launched on 9 March 2026, envisages a strategic transition of the ICM framework from a model focused primarily on Shariah compliance to one that is increasingly purpose-driven. This article seeks to analyse the legal and regulatory framework governing crypto assets in Malaysia, while also examining the key Shariah considerations relevant to the structuring and offering of Shariah-compliant crypto assets.

Under the CMP vision, the ICM is to be anchored by Maqasid al-Shariah (the objectives of Shariah) and the principles of Halal-Toyyib, fostering the development of ethical Islamic financial products that not only satisfy legal and regulatory requirements but also contribute meaningfully to human well-being through the protection of religion, life, intellect, lineage and wealth, while aligning capital deployment with real economic outcomes and sustainable growth. In this regard, the SC had already introduced the Maqasid Al-Shariah Guidance in 2023, and the CMP 2026–2030 reinforces and deepens that direction. The Maqasid Al-Shariah Guidance is structured around six aspirations and 15 guiding principles aimed at strengthening trust and enhancing the ICM's contribution to society and the real economy.^[2]

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