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

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us