Kategori
Cari kemas kini undang-undang
Cari mengikut topik atau pilih kategori amalan.
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnyaADMIRALTY 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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
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…
Baca selanjutnya
CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE
In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was…
Baca selanjutnya
INCOMPETENT MASTER – TEST FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS – GENERAL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTIONS – CARRIER’S DUTIES
In Unity Ship Group SA v Euroins Insurance JSC (The “Happy Aras”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 151, the Admiralty Court dismissed a shipowner’s claim for general average contribution after finding that the vessel was unseaworthy…
Baca selanjutnya
FEDERAL COURT CLARIFIES ‘COMMUNICATION’ UNDER NLC: INFORMAL NOTICE NOT ENOUGH TO TRIGGER TIME LIMIT
In Lee Kean Choon v Khoo San & Ors [2026] 1 MLJ 936, the Federal Court held that the phrase “communicated to him” under section 418 of the National Land Code requires formal written notification by the Land Office, not…
Baca selanjutnya
MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM
In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a…
Baca selanjutnya
MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE
In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not…
Baca selanjutnyaTiada kemas kini yang sepadan dengan penapis ini.