Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

ADMIRALTY 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 the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY