Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND DIGITAL SIGNATURE IN MALAYSIA

What is an e-signature?

Under the Electronic Commerce Act 2006 (“ECA”), an e-signature is a signature adopted by a person in the form of any letter, character, symbol, number, sound or any of the combination which is created in an electronic form. An e-signature can replace a handwritten signature in virtually any process.

Different forms of e-signature: –

  • Bitmap Signature – Scanned images of handwritten signatures onto a document.
  • Digital Signature – A process that guarantee the authenticity of the electronic document via asymmetric cryptosystem (an algorithm or series of algorithms which provide a secure key pair).
  • Biometric Signature – Certified and verified signature via fingerprint, retina, iris or voice.

 

How is digital signature valid?

Yes. It is valid but the following conditions must be fulfilled:

  • The digital signature must be verified by reference to the public key listed in a valid certificate issued by a licensed certification authority;
  • The digital signature was affixed by the signer with the intention of signing the message; and
  • The recipient has no knowledge or notice that the signer has breached a duty as a subscriber and does not rightfully hold the private key used to affix the digital signature.

 

What is the implication of signing under the digital signature?

A message shall be as valid, enforceable and effective as if it had been written on paper if: –

  • It bears in its entirety a digital signature; and
  • That digital signature is verified by the public key listed in a certificate which was issued by a licensed certification authority and was valid at the time the digital signature was created.

 

What documents can be executed via e-signature?

Corporate documents and contract.

 

What documents cannot be executed electronically?

  • Powers of attorney
  • Wills and codicils
  • Trusts
  • Negotiable instruments

 

Which certification authorities in Malaysia has the license from MCMC to issue digital certificates under the DSA?

  • Pos Digicert Sdn Bhd (457608-K);
  • MSC Trustgate.Com Sdn Bhd (478231-X);
  • Telekom Applied Business Sdn Bhd (455343-U); and
  • Raffcomm Technologies Sdn Bhd (1000449-W).

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们