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.

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.

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.

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.

In Dato’ Ting Ching Lee v Ting Siu Hua [2025] 2 MLJ 295, the Federal Court delivered a decisive ruling on the enforceability of gambling-related debts disguised as credit facilities. The Court held that credit lines granted for the sole purpose of purchasing casino chips constituted a composite gambling contract, not a genuine loan – and are therefore unenforceable under Malaysian law.

In overruling Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA v Poh Yang Hong, the Court reinforced that no matter how cleverly disguised, claims tied to gambling are void and against public policy. The decision serves as a stark reminder: Malaysian courts will not act as debt collectors for foreign casinos.

The Federal Court in Chen Boon Kwee v Berjaya Sompo Insurance Bhd [2025] 1 MLJ 158 delivered a crucial ruling that prevents insurers from forcing accident victims to file additional lawsuits to claim their rightful compensation. The court reaffirmed that once a third party has obtained a judgment against the insured, the insurer must pay – no extra legal hurdles, no unnecessary delays. This case marks a significant win for accident victims, ensuring they are not unfairly denied compensation due to procedural roadblocks.

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.