Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT – TOO LATE, TOO LIGHT: GENTING’S DATA PRIVACY CHALLENGE FAILS ON TIMING

1. Summary and Facts

In Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Genting Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 822, the Court of Appeal considered the legality of a data disclosure request by the Director General of Inland Revenue (“DGIR”) and the implications of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (“PDPA”) on such requests.

Genting Malaysia Bhd, which operates a large-scale resort and customer loyalty programme, was requested by the DGIR to disclose personal data of its loyalty cardholders to assist in income tax profiling. Genting refused, citing protection under the PDPA. The DGIR then sought clarification from the Personal Data Protection Commissioner (“PPDP”), who confirmed via a letter that disclosure was permissible under Section 39(b)(ii) of the PDPA and Section 81 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA”).

Relying on this, DGIR forwarded the PPDP’s letter to Genting. In response, Genting initiated judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash both the PPDP’s confirmation letter and DGIR’s follow-up email. The High Court granted the judicial review, holding that the request for personal data contravened the PDPA and the right to privacy. DGIR appealed against this decision.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the DGIR’s forwarding email constituted a reviewable decision under Order 53 Rule 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012.
• Whether Genting’s judicial review application was time-barred under Order 53 Rule 3(6).
• Whether the DGIR’s request for personal data fell within the scope of Section 81 of the ITA.
• Whether compliance with Section 81 ITA would amount to a breach of the PDPA.

3. Court’s Findings

• The Court of Appeal allowed the DGIR’s appeal and overturned the High Court’s decision.
• The Court ruled that DGIR’s email forwarding the PPDP’s letter was not a decision that altered Genting’s legal rights or obligations, and therefore did not meet the threshold of a reviewable decision under judicial review.
• The Court further found that the judicial review application was time-barred, as it was filed significantly outside the three-month window prescribed by Order 53 Rule 3(6). The latest relevant correspondence was dated 13 May 2019, while the application was only filed on 7 February 2020.
• Due to the above jurisdictional findings, the Court did not address the substantive issue of whether the request breached the PDPA.

4. Practical Implications

This case highlights two key takeaways: First, not all government communications are subject to judicial review — only those that legally affect rights or obligations. Second, strict timelines apply; judicial review must be filed within three months, or it risks dismissal regardless of merit. For companies like Genting, it’s a reminder to act swiftly when challenging regulatory demands, especially involving personal data.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami