MONEYLENDING – ILLEGALITY– COURT OF APPEAL: LICENSED MONEYLENDERS CAN RECOVER VOID LOANS UNDER RESTITUTION
In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2025] MLJU 2245, the Court of Appeal ruled that a licensed moneylender may recover loan monies under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, even when the moneylending agreements are void for technical non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951. The Court held that while the agreements were void and unenforceable, they were not illegal, as the lender was duly licensed and the transactions were genuine. Applying the Federal Court’s Detik Ria principles, the Court found that restitution was proportionate and justified, ordering repayment of RM3.38 million to prevent unjust enrichment.
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.
MARITIME LAW – PORT CHARGES – BERTH AND BILL – COURT ANCHORS LIABILITY FOR PORT DUES ON IDLE VESSEL
In Marina Developments Ltd v Owner(S) Of “Sy Explorer” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428, the court upheld the Port Authority’s statutory right to recover outstanding berthing charges, despite claims of abandonment by the vessel’s owners. The judgment reinforces that unless formal legal abandonment procedures are undertaken, port dues will continue to accrue. This decision affirms that even stationary vessels carry financial obligations, and port authorities can enforce recovery under maritime law protocols.
MARITIME LAW – BILLS OF LADING – NO BILL, NO CARGO – SHIPOWNERS HELD LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY WITHOUT ORIGINAL BL
In the pivotal case of The Doric Valour [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401, the Court of Appeal affirmed the stringent maritime principle that cargo cannot lawfully be released without the surrender of original bills of lading. Rejecting shipowners’ reliance on indemnities to justify cargo delivery without original documents, the Court emphasized the sanctity of the bill of lading as the cornerstone of secure international trade. This decision serves as a robust reminder for maritime operators that compliance with established shipping documentation procedures is mandatory to avoid serious liabilities.
LIMITATION OF ACTION – TIME WAITS FOR NO CLAIM – COURT OF APPEAL STRIKES OUT PKA’S LATE ACTION
In the notable decision of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd v Port Kelang Authority [2025] 2 MLJ 238, the Court of Appeal firmly emphasized the critical importance of timely action in contractual disputes, ruling that PKA’s claims against KDSB were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1953. The Court decisively clarified that parties cannot invoke the postponement of limitation periods without demonstrating genuine inability to discover breaches earlier through reasonable diligence. This judgment serves as a stern reminder to litigants to vigilantly monitor their contractual rights and act promptly to avoid losing claims due to statutory time limitations.
LAND LAW – FORGED AND FRAUDULENT – COURT STRIPS INDEFEASIBLE SHIELD FROM FRAUDULENT LAND TRANSFERS
In the landmark decision of Baskaran a/l Govindasamy & Ors v Chiew Yit Kin [2025] 3 MLJ 372, the Court of Appeal held that indefeasible title protection under the National Land Code cannot extend to land transfers tainted by fraud or forgery. Emphasizing rigorous judicial scrutiny, the Court decisively invalidated a fraudulent property transfer, reinforcing that landowners’ rights remain safeguarded against deceitful transactions, and serving as a critical reminder for parties to diligently verify the authenticity of transfer documents to prevent fraudulent claims.
LABOUR LAW – CONSTRUCTIVE CLARITY: COURT REINFORCES BOUNDARIES ON EMPLOYER CONDUCT AND EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
In the significant decision of Sudhir a/l AK Kumaren v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [2025] 3 MLJ 698, the Court of Appeal clarified the scope of constructive dismissal, emphasizing employers’ obligations toward transparency and good faith in managing employment relationships. The Court decisively ruled that actions such as compulsory leave, removal of duties without clear justification, and creating ambiguity about an employee’s role amount to a fundamental breach of the employment contract. This judgment highlight the critical importance of mutual trust and communication in employment contracts, reinforcing protection against employer misconduct.
TORT OF DEFAMATION – NO MALICE, NO DEFAMATION: POLITICAL COMMENTARY STANDS PROTECTED
In Lim Guan Eng v Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 791, the Court of Appeal dismissed a defamation claim over a politically charged article alleging conditions tied to a RM4 million school allocation. The Court ruled that the statements – framed as a call for explanation – were not defamatory when read in full context. The defendants successfully relied on the defences of fair comment and reportage, with the Court emphasising that political commentary, if rooted in fact and honestly held, remains protected speech – even during an election campaign. Malice was not proven, and the article’s publication in a neutral “Letters to the Editor” section further insulated the publisher from liability.
ILLEGALITY AND CONTRACT – RM49 MILLION MISTAKE? ADW2 STRUCK DOWN FOR NO CONSIDERATION DIMENSI SDN BHD LEGALLY VALID?
In Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd v Port Kelang Authority [2025] 2 MLJ 238, the Federal Court reaffirmed a core principle of contract law – no consideration, no contract. The Court held that the supplemental agreement (ADW2), which increased interest payable by RM49 million, was void for want of consideration, despite being acted upon. Notably, the Court rejected the “practical benefit” doctrine from Williams v Roffey, clarifying that Malaysian law continues to uphold traditional consideration requirements. Estoppel, too, could not rescue the agreement. This case sends a clear message: contractual variations must be backed by clear and enforceable consideration, or risk being struck down.
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 – CUSTOMS’ DELAY TURNS SEIZURE INTO COSTLY MISSTEP
Non-compliance with s 128 of the Customs Act 1967 is fatal as it involves a deprivation of property which is protected under Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution. Customs authorities must strictly adhere to statutory timelines; failure to do so renders seizures unlawful and entitles claimants to damages.
MY 
EN 
ZH