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.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE (R&D) SDN BHD v. RAMLI MD SALEH & ORS
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
HASHIM HAMZAH CJ
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI FCJ
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-50-11-2024(W)]
29 JULY 2026

(i) Under a sukuk al-ijarah structure where the originator transfers its entire beneficial interest in an asset to a special purpose vehicle (and subsequently to a sukuk trustee for the benefit of sukuk holders) while retaining legal title strictly as a bare trustee, any subsequent sale proceeds generated from the pre-sale of that asset belong exclusively to the sukuk holders as the beneficial owners. The bare trustee acquires no legal or beneficial right to the proceeds. Consequently, such proceeds cannot be treated as funds originating from or belonging to the bare trustee, nor can their application toward group debt redemption constitute advances or enforceable debts owing to the bare trustee; (ii) Financial statements are prepared based on the principle of economic substance over legal form in accordance with applicable accounting standards, where assets and transactions may not be derecognised if economic risks and rewards are retained. A 'true sale' for accounting purposes is distinct from a 'true sale' under strict law or Shariah principles. Accordingly, mere accounting entries reflecting inter-company advances or the retention of an asset on a company's balance sheet do not, by themselves, create, establish, or prove the existence of legally enforceable debts in the absence of an underlying legal entitlement or contractual obligation.

YEO GEOK BENG v. GOLDSAND JV SDN BHD & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA, MELAKA
RAJA SEGARAN S KRISHNAN JC
[CIVIL SUIT NO: MA-22NCVC-3-01-2022]
16 JUNE 2026

(i) An order striking out or expunging an affidavit, under O. 41 r. 6 and O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'), in interlocutory proceedings is strictly confined to the propriety of that specific filed document, and it does not constitute a substantive pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of the underlying facts, conversations, or separate exhibits contained in other parts of the court record; (ii) Disputed documents, audio recordings and transcriptions whose authenticity or contents are contested should not be summarily excluded prior to trial; instead, they must be placed in the appropriate pre-trial case management bundle under O. 34 r. 2(2)(e) of the ROC for their admissibility, authentication, compliance with s. 90A of the Evidence Act 1950, relevance, and weight to be fully heard and determined by the trial court.

WEE KU WING v. AMIRA UMAIRA TENG ABDULLAH
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
SHAHNAZ SULAIMAN JCA
AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: D-01(NCVC)(A)-550-08-2024]
23 JULY 2026

(i) The application of the Distribution Act 1958 ('DA') is determined by the religion of the deceased rather than that of the beneficiary. A legitimate child, regardless of his/her religious status, remains entitled to inherit under the DA where the estate is that of a non-Muslim deceased, as the DA contains no provision excluding a Muslim child from inheriting a non-Muslim parent's estate; (ii) Uncodified religious principles, including hadiths and fatwas, cannot override clear statutory provisions enacted by Parliament or the State Legislatures. In matters concerning the distribution of a non-Muslim deceased's estate, the civil courts are bound to apply the relevant written law, namely the DA, as the subject matter falls within civil succession and not Islamic personal law.

e-Judgment Today

PP v. JULASIRI AKILMARA
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
NORDIN HASSAN FCJ
AZMI ARIFFIN FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(L)-77-05-2025(S)]
30 JULY 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (15)

Abstract – At the close of the prosecution's case, there is no statutory or legal requirement for a trial judge to make a formal or spoken declaration specifying whether the accused is called upon to answer a case of actual trafficking or presumed trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA'). An omission by the trial judge to expressly state or record whether a case of direct or presumed trafficking has been established does not render the order calling for the defence defective nor does it cause a miscarriage of justice, provided that: (i) the prosecution's reliance on actual possession to trigger the statutory presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the DDA is clearly communicated and understood by all parties throughout the proceedings; and (ii) no prejudice was occasioned to the accused in framing or presenting their defence.

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences – Trafficking in dangerous drugs – Presumption of trafficking – Duty of trial judge at close of prosecution's case – Trial judge omitted to state whether accused called upon to answer direct or presumed trafficking – Whether statutory or legal requirement under Criminal Procedure Code to make formal declaration – Whether omission fatal or caused miscarriage of justice – Whether accused fully aware of prosecution's case throughout proceedings – Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 39B(1)(a) & 37(da)(xvi)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prima facie – Call for defence – Accused charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs – Presumption of trafficking – Duty of trial court at close of prosecution's case – Trial judge omitted to state whether accused called upon to answer direct or presumed trafficking – Whether statutory or legal requirement to make formal declaration – Whether omission fatal or caused miscarriage of justice – Whether accused fully aware of prosecution's case throughout proceedings – Criminal Procedure Code, s. 180

LATEST FC/CA

Chong Yoon Sze & Satu Lagi lwn. PP [2026] CLJU 3750 [CA]
Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya v. Yeoh Thiam Soon [2026] CLJU 3715 [CA]
Abdul Syukur Yahya lwn. PP & Satu Rayuan Lagi [2026] CLJU 3749 [CA]
Loh Siew Choong & Ors v. Toong Yuen (Ipoh) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2026] CLJU 3762 [CA]
Azrol Khalil lwn. PP [2026] CLJU 3664 [CA]
Azril Sani Ramudin lwn. PP & Another Appeal [2026] CLJU 3662 [CA]
Lumber Vertex Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor v. Kenanga Investors Berhad [2026] CLJU 3653 [CA]
Pop Investments Limited v. Icapital.Biz Berhad & Another Appeal [2026] CLJU 3652 [CA]
Pelorus Holding Sdn Bhd v. Jaffa Roger Dawkins & Ors [2026] CLJU 3608 [FC]
Ng Mee Yee & Anor v. PP [2026] CLJU 3607 [FC]

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“Although inter-company loans between or amongst companies with common directors are not, in themselves, prohibited under the Companies Act, such transactions necessarily attract closer scrutiny owing to the inherent risk of conflicts of interest and the potential misuse of corporate funds for collateral purposes. It was, therefore, entirely appropriate for the learned High Court Judge to subject the transfers of a total sum of RM9,397,057.40 from Ga Yee to Encony and Eramas, facilitated by Khor and Chin, to careful examination in order to determine whether those transfers were tainted by fraud or formed part of a conspiracy to injure Ga Yee.”

“The learned High Court Judge further observed that the transfers of money from Ga Yee to Encony and Eramas had lacked the hallmarks of a bona fide commercial loan transaction and were devoid of any commercial substance indicative of a genuine lending arrangement. This, in turn, rendered the transfers inherently questionable. In our judgment, His Lordship was fully justified in reaching that conclusion for the following reasons.”

“Nature of transaction - a genuine loan or advance would be documented with clear terms regarding consideration, purpose, and, most importantly, repayment. The evidence adduced in the present case showed that these essential elements were completely absent.” – Per Evrol Mariette Peters JCA in Eramas Konsortium Sdn Bhd V. Ga Yee Furniture Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2026] 9 CLJ 705

“And I further order that the defendants shall pay the plaintiff general damages of RM600,000, being RM15,000 per day for 40 days of unlawful detention, and exemplary damages of RM75,000. Interest at 5% per annum on the general and exemplary damages shall run from the date of filing of the writ on 10 January 2023 until the date of full realisation.”

“This case is a sobering reminder of how easily fundamental liberties can be extinguished by institutional carelessness or, worse, by institutional arrogance.”

“Simon Adavize Momoh came to Malaysia lawfully. He married a Malaysian and built a life here, raising two children. He committed a traffic offence, for which he was tried, convicted, and punished: one day in prison and a fine of RM12,000. He paid in full. What happened next should not have happened. He was held for 40 more days under a legal framework that did not apply to him, without ever being brought before a judge or a Magistrate, under the cover of a COVID-19 story that was not true, and cut off from his family and his lawyer. The law was clear. The Constitution was clear. Both were ignored.” - Per Jamhirah Ali in Simon Adavize Momoh v. Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia & Ors [2026] CLJU 2984

“In light of the above analysis, it is therefore strictly incorrect to state that a director can hold a “dual capacity” or wear “two hats” - in the sense of acting as a director under company law while at the same time being an employee (workman) under a contract of service. It is in our view more accurate as well as helpful if focus is made on the individual concerned, who can be described as wearing two hats when he is both a company director and also an employee of the company at the same time. It is the individual - not the position of director - who can double hat and perform both roles. It cannot be emphasised enough that a distinction must be drawn and properly understood between the position and the person holding it. This is key.”

“In other words, the inherent status of a directorship does not admit that of an employee (or workman), and vice versa. The two do not mix. Nevertheless, again we say that an individual can under the law be both, but the performance of the two roles we reiterate is subject to different sets of legal considerations.” - Per Mohd Nazlan Ghazali FCJ in Acexide Technology Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Chang Heng Keong & Another Appeal [2026] 7 CLJ 687

UPDATED
( as of 07 October 2026)

ACT 640
Skills Development Fund Act 2004
ACT 800
Employment Insurance System and Employment Services Act 2017
ACT 652
National Skills Development Act 2006
ACT 613
Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001
PU(A) 397/2019
Customs Regulations 2019

REVOKED
(as of 21 July 2026)

PRINCIPAL

ACT 885
National Trust Fund Act 2026
ACT 884
Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link Act 2026
ACT 883
Records (Disposal) (Sarawak) Act 1955 (Revised—2026)
ACT 882
Government Procurement Act 2026
ACT 881
International Settlement Agreements Resulting From Mediation Act 2026

AMENDING

ACT A1797
Witness Protection (Amendment) Act 2026
ACT A1796
Employment Insurance System (Amendment) Act 2026
ACT A1795
Sexual Offences Against Children (Amendment) Act 2026
ACT A1794
Road Transport (Amendment) Act 2026
ACT A1793
Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 2026

PUA

PU(A) 351/2026
Education (Terms Of Educational Institutions Year 2027) Regulations 2026
PU(A) 350/2026
Customs Duties (Amendment) Order 2026
PU(A) 349/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 14) Order 2026
PU(A) 348/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 13) Order 2026
PU(A) 347/2026
Immigration (Exemption) (No. 12) Order 2026

PUB

PU(B) 394/2026
Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation
PU(B) 393/2026
Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation
PU(B) 392/2026
Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation
PU(B) 391/2026
Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation
PU(B) 390/2026
Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation

BILLS, etc.

LEGAL NEWS

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

MEDICAL KILLING – A RIGHT TO DIE IN MALAYSIA*
by Dr Ambikai Thuraisingam**

ABSTRACT

This is a conceptual paper to address the ethical and legal perspective of euthanasia in Malaysia. The paper analyses the development, types and the legal and ethical debates concerning both types of euthanasia. While deciding on formulating a law prescribing these exceptional situations and enforcing the law, all aspects of euthanasia – medical, social, economic, ethical and legal – have to be taken into consideration. Although there is a strong debate in modern societies over the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide, many ethicists of different philosophical backgrounds are comfortable with voluntary euthanasia and the right to die with dignity.

This study reviews literature on common-law developments and the current Malaysian position regarding euthanasia and end-of-life decisions involving medical practitioners, patients and families. The subject of euthanasia has generated many controversial debates, particularly on its legality, among legal and medical scholars. This has been primarily due to the doctrine of sanctity of life, which is a predominant principle in many religions and is embedded in moral values. The underlying precept is that human life is sacred and demands respect, as all life comes from God and life can only be taken away intentionally through due process of law. Thus, ending a person's life, even upon his or her request, is considered in many jurisdictions as a criminal offence and in some jurisdictions would be tantamount to infringement of human rights. Irrespective of humanitarian motives, a doctor who aids a patient in this act will be in breach of his unequivocal duty as a doctor and considered to have committed an unlawful act, which will subject him to legal sanctions.

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