Archives

BREACH OF CONTRACT – ACQUIESCENCE AND CLEAN HANDS: COURT OF APPEAL BARS PURCHASER FROM ENFORCING SPA

In Vila Mekar Sdn Bhd v Wong Yie Dee [2025] MLJU 2104, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s order for specific performance of a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). The Court held that the Purchaser’s attempt to terminate in 2010 was invalid, as he failed to pay the required compensation, and by acquiescing to the Developer’s delay, the SPA remained subsisting. Later, the Purchaser’s refusal to pay progress claims and termination of his housing loan constituted clear breach and repudiation. Emphasising the equitable maxim that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands,” the Court removed the Purchaser’s caveat and awarded costs to the Developer.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT- BALLOT BOX VS SOPS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE

In Tamileswaaran a/l Ravi Kumar v Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 2371, the Court of Appeal held that the Election Commission acted unconstitutionally when it barred a COVID-positive voter from casting his ballot under SOPs issued during the Johor State Elections. The Court reaffirmed that the right to vote under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be curtailed by subsidiary legislation or administrative protocols. While acknowledging a breach, the Court declined to award damages as the Commission acted in good faith under extraordinary public health circumstances.

DEFAMATION – LOCUS STANDI – WHEN SOCIETIES CAN’T SUE: IKRAM’S DEFAMATION CLAIM AGAINST RIDHUAN FAILS ON LOCUS STANDI

In Mahdzir bin Md Isa (suing as Pegawai Awam Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia) v Mohd Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah [2025] 10 MLJ 605, the High Court dismissed a defamation suit brought on behalf of Ikram, holding that a registered society lacks the legal standing to sue for defamation under the Societies Act 1966. While the Court accepted that the impugned Facebook postings were defamatory and unsupported by the defences of justification or fair comment, the claim was struck out at the threshold issue of locus standi. The judgment underscores a significant limitation: reputational protection under defamation law does not extend to unincorporated societies.

ADMIRALTY – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2

In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG (The “MSC Flaminia”) [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal’s restrictive “owner’s original loss” rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CITIZENSHIP – CITIZENSHIP DENIED: HIGH COURT REFUSES TO LEGALISE CHILD TRADING

In Ow Man Yaw & Ors v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor [2024] 9 MLJ 77, the High Court dismissed an application for Malaysian citizenship brought by adoptive parents on behalf of a child obtained through an agent. The Court held that the child was not “abandoned” within the meaning of section 19B of the Federal Constitution but was instead the subject of a planned arrangement amounting to child trading. As such, the presumption of citizenship by operation of law could not be invoked. The Court further affirmed that applications under Article 15A rest solely with the Federal Government, beyond judicial intervention. The ruling underscores that the best interests of the child cannot override constitutional requirements or validate unlawful conduct.

MONEYLENDERS ACT 1951- UNJUST ENRICHMENT OR ILLEGAL LOAN? COURT WEIGHS RESTITUTION AGAINST THE MONEYLENDERS ACT

In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2021] 12 MLJ, the Court considered whether a licensed moneylender, whose loan agreements were void for non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951, could nevertheless pursue restitutionary remedies. The plaintiff, having advanced RM3.5 million which was channelled to the defendant’s company, sought recovery on grounds of money had and received and unjust enrichment under the Contracts Act 1950. The defendant applied to strike out the claim, arguing that it was merely an indirect attempt to enforce an illegal loan. The case illustrates the delicate balance between statutory illegality under the Moneylenders Act and the equitable principles underpinning restitution.

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 224, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the claimants and set aside the High Court’s decision which had favoured the insurer. The Court held that Zurich was not entitled to repudiate liability under the motor takaful policy, as the alleged non-disclosures were not proven to be material or made dishonestly. Emphasising the principles of fairness and protection inherent in takaful, the Court ruled that technical omissions should not be used to defeat the rights of accident victims and their families.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

In Lord Marine Co Ltd v Vimeksim Trans SA & Anor [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, the English Commercial Court exercised its powers under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to order the sale of a deteriorating cargo of Ukrainian corn over which the shipowners had exercised a lien for unpaid freight. Mr Justice Bryan held that the cargo was the “subject of the proceedings” and that the court could intervene to preserve its value pending LMAA arbitration. The decision clarifies that a “freight prepaid” stamp does not estop owners where freight has not actually been paid and the bills of lading never left owners’ possession, and that possession can be maintained even when the cargo is stored in a receivers’ warehouse. This case reinforces the court’s readiness to act swiftly to prevent the loss of value in perishable cargo while safeguarding parties through fortified undertakings in damages.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NO ESCAPE FOR GUARANTORS – COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO OCBC IN LOAN DEFAULT DISPUTE

In OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Agroglobal Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, the Singapore High Court granted summary judgment against the borrower and its guarantors, dismissing bare allegations of misrepresentation and non-disbursement. The decision reaffirmed that signed facility and guarantee documents are binding, and generic denials- absent credible evidence – will not prevent judgment. The case highlights the judiciary’s strict stance on enforcing loan agreements and signals that guarantors cannot plead ignorance of clear contractual obligations.