Categories
Find a legal update
Search by topic or choose a practice category.
LEGAL UPDATES – BANKING – CREDIT CARD – SHARED YOUR OTP ACCESS? DON’T BLAME THE BANK: HIGH COURT LIMITS QUINCECARE DUTY
Can a cardholder blame the bank for disputed transactions after voluntarily giving a third party control over the OTP authentication process? In Noor Farekh bt Mohamed Kassim v Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Bhd [2026]…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – CIVIL PROCEDURE – MAREVA INJUNCTION – FRAUD ALLEGED, ASSETS SAFE: WHY A STRONG CASE ALONE WON’T GET YOU A MAREVA INJUNCTION
Can allegations of fraud and dishonesty justify freezing a defendant’s assets before trial? In Sim Kwang Kai, Adrian v Johnathan Wong Futt Po [2026] 10 MLJ 642, the High Court held that they are not enough. Although the…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – ROAD TRAFFIC – DRINK DRIVING – BREATH TEST PROCEDURE – OVER THE LIMIT, BUT PROCEDURE MATTERS: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS DRINK-DRIVING ACQUITTAL
Can a driver be acquitted despite a breath analysis showing alcohol levels far above the prescribed limit? In Public Prosecutor v Sanjay Kumar a/l Selvakumaru [2026] 10 MLJ 665, the High Court upheld the acquittal…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – STRATA MANAGEMENT – INTER-FLOOR LEAKAGE – DAMAGES – WATER FROM ABOVE: OWNER LIABLE FOR INTER-FLOOR LEAKAGE UNDER THE SMA
Who is responsible when water from an upstairs condominium unit damages the unit below? In Leng Wie Mun v Saeed bin Ali Magad [2026] 10 MLJ 370, the High Court found the upper unit owner liable after the evidence…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – STRATA MANAGEMENT – MAINTENANCE CHARGES – MIXED DEVELOPMENT – ONE SIZE NEED NOT FIT ALL: DIFFERENTIATED MAINTENANCE CHARGES UPHELD
Can a JMB charge different maintenance rates within the same development? In Suntharalingam a/l V Veluppillai & Ors v Icon City JMB & Ors [2026] 10 MLJ 772, the High Court held that it can. In a mixed development where…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – TORT – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL LIABILITY – HOME CARE TRAGEDY: HOSPITAL AND DOCTORS CLEARED OF LIABILITY AFTER DISCHARGE
In Yong Har Leng v Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd & Ors [2026] 9 MLJ 857, the High Court dismissed a medical negligence claim arising from a patient’s death after discharge into private home nursing care. The Court held…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – TORT – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – GRIEF IS NOT A GROUND FOR A HIGHER AWARD IN BIRTH INJURY CASES
Can damages be increased simply because the consequences of medical negligence are tragic? In Kerajaan Malaysia dan lain-lain v Nirwana Tamba [2026] 10 MLJ 24, the High Court held that they cannot. Although the plaintiff…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – CONTRACT – BREACH – LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION – HOPE IS NOT A CONTRACT: COURT REJECTS CLAIM BASED ON LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
Can a party recover millions based on an expectation that a business relationship would continue? In Shapers International Sdn Bhd & Ors v Halal Industry Development Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2026] 10 MLJ 58, the High Court…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – TORT – PASSING OFF – INTERIM INJUNCTION – NO TRADEMARK? NO PROBLEM: COURT PROTECTS RESTAURANT’S GOODWILL FROM COPYCATS
Can a business protect its brand without a registered trademark? In Golden Damascus Diversifies Sdn Bhd v Aroi Thai Kitchen (Puncak Alam) Sdn Bhd [2026] 10 MLJ 97, the High Court held that it can. The Court granted an…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – TORT – NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION – CHEMICAL EXPOSURE PROVEN, BUT NO LIABILITY: WHY CAUSATION MATTERS
Can a negligence claim succeed simply because unsafe conditions are proven? In Dr Nurul Aiman bt Mohd Yusof v Universiti Sains Malaysia [2026] 9 MLJ 893, the High Court held that it cannot. Although chemical…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – CONTRACT – PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE – APPELLATE REVIEW – ADDITIONAL WORK, YOU ASKED FOR IT, YOU PAY FOR IT: COURT ORDERS PAYMENT FOR ADDITIONAL WORKS
Can an employer refuse to pay for additional works after requesting and benefiting from them? In Samudera Wibawa Sdn Bhd v Prudence Energy Sdn Bhd [2026] 10 MLJ 229, the High Court said no. The Court held that…
Read more
LEGAL UPDATES – CIVIL PROCEDURE – MENTAL HEALTH – HIGH COURT FREEZES ASSETS BEFORE MENTAL CAPACITY IS DETERMINED
Can the High Court freeze a person’s assets before deciding whether he or she lacks mental capacity? In Ong Tjoei Aik Harold v Gan Siew Mui @ Gan Yook Hwa (F) & Ors [2026] 10 MLJ 115, the High Court answered yes. The…
Read more
CORPORATE LAW – PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL – PLAIN ERROR OF MIXED LAW AND FACTS – APPELLATE INTERVENTION WARRANTED
In Capital City Property Sdn Bhd v Teh Swee Neo & Anor [2026] MLJU 540, the Court of Appeal set aside a High Court ruling that had pierced the corporate veil of a developer company and held it liable for unpaid rent owed…
Read moreADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES
In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as…
Read more
GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES
In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the…
Read more
MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS
In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation…
Read more
JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS
In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after…
Read more
DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY
In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even…
Read moreNo legal updates match these filters.