HOME

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

JAMES HO THIAM HEE v. KOBE SHIPPING AND FORWARDING AGENCIES SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SARAWAK
MOHD TAUFIK MOHD YUSOFF
AWARD NO. 275 OF 2025 [CASE NO: 8-4-312-24]
24 FEBRUARY 2025

A 'goodwill' payment made by an employer upon termination does not prevent an employee from challenging the legality of the said dismissal at the Industrial Court. Such payments are considered gestures of helpfulness and do not imply acceptance of the termination or waive the employee’s right to pursue legal action under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The employer’s act of paying a goodwill payment and the employee’s acceptance of the same without any protest, do not mean that the employer can later argue that the employee accepted the termination and that the employer is absolved of any claim by employee for unlawful dismissal.

HAVI LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD v. PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK);
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM CJ (MALAYA);
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ;
AB KARIM AB JALIL FCJ;
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(F)-5-02-2024(W)]
20 JANUARY 2025

An agreement for the sale of a business, encompassing fixed assets, liabilities, and business contracts, constitutes a 'conveyance on sale' under s. 21(1) of the Stamp Act 1949, and is subject to ad valorem stamp duty under item 32(a) of the First Schedule to the said Act, even if the actual transfer of title occurs at a future date. In the case at hand, the intention of parties, as evidenced by the agreement, was to transfer ownership of the business assets. The timing of the actual transfer was immaterial in determining whether the agreement is a 'conveyance on sale.' The crucial factor was the intention to transfer property, not the precise moment of transfer.

GAN KOK SHANG & ANOR v. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA; AHMAD ZAIDI IBRAHIM JCA; AZMI ARIFFIN JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05-79-03-2023]
13 SEPTEMBER 2024

Section 177A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC'), with its emphasis on 'as soon as may be practicable,' reflects the constitutional right to a speedy trial enshrined in art. 5 of the Federal Constitution. A prosecution commences when a charge is read to the accused and a plea is entered. Unnecessary delays in the transfer process, particularly those caused by the withholding of the Public Prosecutor's ('PP') consent, may constitute a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial. Therefore, the Magistrates' Court has the power to transfer a case to the High Court, under s. 177A(2) of the CPC, without prior written consent from the PP. After all, when the Deputy Public Prosecutor ('DPP') initiates a prosecution in court, it is deemed to be an implicit consent by the PP, as the DPP has the authority to act on behalf of the PP.

JOSEPH SINNAPPAN v. PP
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED J
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: AA-42(Ors)-5-07-2023]
9 OCTOBER 2024

Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code serves as the terms of reference within which the Coroner conducts the inquest into the death of the deceased. As such, the Coroner cannot act outside the perimeter of the said terms of reference. In an inquest, there are no parties, indictment, prosecution, defence and trial. It is simply an attempt to establish facts. It is an inquisitorial process, a process of investigation which is quite unlike a trial, where the prosecutor accuses and the accused defends, while the judge holds the balance or the ring, whichever metaphor one chooses to use.

e-Judgment Today

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

Ketua Pengarah Dalam Negeri v. Kind Action (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 539 [FC]
Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] CLJU 540 [FC]
Detik Ria Sdn Bhd v. Prudential Corporation Holdings Limited & Anor [2025] CLJU 466 [FC]
Pendaftar Mualaf Negeri Perlis & Ors v. Loh Siew Hong & Another Appeal [2025] CLJU 265 [FC]
V Medical Services M Sdn Bhd v. Swissray Asia Healthcare Co Ltd [2025] CLJU 408 [FC]
Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor v. Dr Vijaendreh Subramaniam & Anor [2025] CLJU 407 [FC]
Dato' Ting Ching Lee v. Ting Siu Hua [2025] CLJU 361 [FC]
Mustapha Kamil Abdullah v. Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Dan Pembersihan Awam & Anor [2025] CLJU 389 [CA]
Lim Guan Eng v. Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] CLJU 388 [CA]
Majlis Perbandaran Selayang v. Suresh Subramaniam [2025] CLJU 467 [FC]

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“The thrust of the respondent’s submission ultimately was that the RM10 million was reasonable compensation within the meaning of s. 75 of the Act. Since the appellant was disputing that this was reasonable compensation, it was her burden to prove otherwise. We are of the considered opinion that this burden has been discharged for the following reasons.”

“Although there is a legitimate interest of the party to maintain its political position, the RM10 million is out of proportion to such interest of the party in the enforcement of the obligation of the bond. We further say the amount is not proportionate as the undisputed 22 months of the appellant’s service as a member of Parliament had not been considered.”

“To conclude on this issue, after considering the evidence and the principles of legitimate interest and proportionality, we find the RM10 million cannot be construed as reasonable compensation. We find it to be unreasonable, extravagant and unconscionable and not in proportion to the legitimate interest sought to be protected.”

“We find that the HCJ was plainly wrong to have allowed the respondent’s claim of RM10 million. However, we cannot ignore the breach of the bond by the appellant and we vary the amount payable to RM100,000.”

- Per See Mee Chun JCA in Zuraida Kamaruddin v. Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (Saman Sebagai Setiausaha Agung, Parti Keadilan Rakyat Untuk Dan Bagi Pihak Parti Keadilan Rakyat) [2025] 2 CLJ 942

“The sole reason for the learned trial judge’s dismissal of DW1’s and DW2’s evidence was that their evidence contradicted the finding of fact made by the learned HCJ in the previous suit, as quoted above. We hold that the relevancy and admissibility of judgments, orders, or decrees as evidence in any trial are subject to the limited circumstances set out under ss. 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act 1950 (“EA 1950”).”

“Turning to the facts of the present case, we found that the finding of the learned HCJ on the grounds of judgment in the previous suit relied on by the learned trial judge did not fall under any of the provisions under ss. 40 to 42 of the EA 1950 above. We are of the considered view that under s. 43 of the EA 1950, the production of a previous judgment merely establishes the existence of a prior decision of the court and nothing more. We affirm our earlier decision in Datuk S Nallakaruppan & Ors v. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim & Other Appeals [2015] 6 CLJ 425 in which it was held as follows:

[24] Therefore, with regard to the defendants’ defence of justification, we are in agreement with the learned judicial commissioner that s. 43 of the Evidence Act would be a bar to the defendants to rely on the judgment or order or decree of another court proceeding more so it is a criminal proceeding. (emphasis added)”

– Per Hashim Hamzah JCA in Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Johor v. Huan Kok Sy [2025] 2 CLJ 871

“Taking the cue from the jurisprudence propounded by the Court of Appeal in Newlake Development Sdn Bhd v. Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd [2017] CLJU 527, we should revisit the common law principle that “Leave may be refused to a plaintiff to discontinue the action, if the plaintiff is not wholly dominis litis or if the defendant has by the proceedings obtained an advantage of which it does not seem just to deprive him.” This is because the starting principle must be that it is not desirable that a plaintiff should be compelled to litigate against his will.”

“If the plaintiff wishes to discontinue his action and the court finds that the plaintiff is not wholly dominis litis or if the defendant has by the proceedings obtained an advantage of which it does not seem just to deprive him, the court should not force the plaintiff to litigate against his wishes but should allow him to discontinue but without liberty to file afresh.”

“We can now do that, ie, impose a term ‘without liberty to file afresh’, contrary to the position taken by the Indian cases, because as pointed out by the Court of Appeal in Newlake Development Sdn Bhd v. Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd, Malaysian courts can now impose terms on discontinuance as ‘under the new Rules of Court 2012, the court plays a proactive role in moving the pace for litigation. The courts no longer leave it to the litigants to decide the same.’.... this way we can avoid unnecessary wastage of precious judicial time and litigants can also save on legal fees.” - Per Leong Wai Hong JC in Lee Ngan Hoo v. Insp Sarawanan Panrengam & Ors [2025] 2 CLJ 590

UPDATED
( as of 13 March 2025)

ACT 655
Water Services Industry Act 2006
ACT 747
Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012
ACT 77
Armed Forces Act 1972
ACT 792
Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017
ACT 194
Oaths and Affirmations Act 1949 (Revised 1977)

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 A1753
Labour Ordinance Of Sabah (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1752
Constitution (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1751
Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1750
Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025
ACT A1749
Administration Of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) (Amendment) Act 2025

PUA

PU(A) 83/2025
Islamic Financial Services (Development Bank Of Sarawak Berhad) (Exemption) Order 2025
PU(A) 82/2025
Development Financial Institutions (Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad) (Exemption) Order 2025
PU(A) 81/2025
Farmers’ Organization (Amendment) Regulations 2025
PU(A) 80/2025
Customs Duties (Goods Under The Comprehensive And Progressive Agreement For Trans-Pacific Partnership) (Amendment) Order 2025
PU(A) 79/2025
Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 4) Order 2025

PUB

PU(B) 103/2025
List Of Insurance Licensees
PU(B) 102/2025
List Of Labuan Islamic Banks Licensees
PU(B) 101/2025
Notice To Third Parties
PU(B) 100/2025
List Of Labuan Takaful Licensees
PU(B) 99/2025
List Of Labuan Banks And Labuan Investment Banks

BILLS, etc.

LEGAL NEWS

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE COURT OF ARBITRATION:
THE UNRESOLVED ISSUES OF IMMUNITIES
by Kang Mei Yee*

The Parliament of Malaysia has passed the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2024 and the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication (Amendment) Bill 2024 ('Amendment Bills'). The amendments are primarily to reflect the reformation of the Asian International Arbitration Centre ('AIAC') pursuant to the Supplemental Agreement between the Government of Malaysia and the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization (AALCO) relating to the AIAC in Kuala Lumpur executed on 20 February 2024 ('Supplemental Agreement'). The reformation refers mainly to the introduction of the AIAC Court of Arbitration and the substitution of the position of the Director of the AIAC with the President of the AIAC Court of Arbitration. The most significant result of the reformation is that the President of the Court of Arbitration, instead of the Director of the AIAC, would have the power to appoint arbitrators and adjudicators. Following the passing of the Amendment Bills, the question that immediately followed was: What is the difference between a Director of the AIAC and a President of the Court of Arbitration? It appears from the amendments that there is no difference between their roles and functions. As it appears to be just a substitution, an interesting question arises regarding the status of the President of the Court of Arbitration vis-à-vis the immunities enjoyed by the Director of the AIAC.

SUMMARY OF KEY AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001 ('AMLA 2001')^*
by Fakhrullah Fadzilah^[i] Wan Tasnima^[ii] Alif Mustaqim^[iii]

The Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Amendment Bill ('Bill') was passed by the House of Representatives on 11 December 2024.^[1] The primary objective of the Bill is to enhance supervision and enforcement measures to combat money laundering and terrorism financing effectively. The Bill has 52 clauses with proposed new sections, including the introduction of new provisions targeting the financing of restricted activities such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It also emphasises preventive measures to protect the country's financial system from being exploited for criminal purposes^[2] while aligning with the Financial Action Task Force ('FATF') 40 Recommendations.

We have taken the opportunity to review the Bill and below is a brief summary of the amendments to the AMLA 2001:

IS MALAYSIA'S COMPETITION ACT OVERLY RESTRICTIVE?
A REASSESSMENT OF JOINT PURCHASING AGREEMENTS
by Suren Rajah*

INTRODUCTION

As we progress further into 2025, Malaysians continue to struggle with rising living costs amid persistent inflation, volatile markets, and the gradual rollback of government subsidies. The Competition Act 2010 was enacted to protect consumers from anti-competitive practices. Yet, the high prices observed today are often driven by mounting operational costs that businesses simply pass on to consumers—costs that could potentially be mitigated through pro-competitive collaborative efforts between competitors.

In other jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the United Kingdom, competition authorities have adopted a more balanced approach. They introduce guidelines^[1] to foster pro-competitive initiatives between competitors, including arrangements like joint purchasing, ensuring that any cost benefits flow down to consumers.

By contrast, Malaysia's regulatory body—the Malaysia Competition Commission ('MyCC')—has primarily concentrated on clamping down on anti-competitive conduct, offering limited guidance on how competing businesses can legitimately collaborate to reduce their costs.

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