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.