家庭法律
FAMILY LAW – CUSTOMARY MARRIAGE – NOT REGISTERED – SOCSO
Can a customarily married wife claim for SOCSO benefits of their late husband?
22 February ,2021
Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm
法律资讯
法律资讯
Filter by Category
海事法
22 February ,2021
物權法
PROPERTY LAW– DEVELOPERS – LATE DELIVERY OF HOUSES – HOUSE BUYERS – LIQUIDATED ASCERTAINED DAMAGES – LATE DELIVERY OF HOUSES
Payment for late delivery of houses must be calculated from the date booking fee was unlawfully collected by the developer.
22 February ,2021
海事法
SHIPPING LAW – SHIP ARREST – MORTGAGE – ACTION IN REM – SERVICE WITHIN MALAYSIA
What can a bank do if a mortgagor cease to pay his/her loan vested in a ship? Can I invoke an admiralty writ in rem in High Court of Malaya but serve and execute them in the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak?
4 February ,2021
侵權行為
TORT – DEFAMATION
Things you should know about Defamation. In this article we’ll be talking about Libel, Slander, Innuendo, and elements of defamation.
4 February ,2021
侵權行為
CARPARK MANAGEMENT – LIABLE FOR CAR THEFT – CARPARK
My car was stolen in a carpark with automated barricade system. Is carpark managements liable for negligence?
8 January ,2021
智慧財產
TRADEMARKS – INFRINGEMENT – LIKELIHOOD OF CAUSING CONFUSION
There is a company using similar name with my company. Isn’t that trademark infringement? Can I take legal action against them?
6 January ,2021
地層
STRATA TITLE – MANAGEMENT – TRESPASS AND NUISANCE
My neighbour rented out his condominium unit to university students. The amount of people that would usually live in such a space doubled. The noise level was unbearable. We made complaints to the management corporation but nothing was done. What can I do?
18 December ,2020
網路法
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND DIGITAL SIGNATURE IN MALAYSIA
Digital signature, its validity and implication of signing with digital signature – The Malaysia perspective
18 December ,2020
物權法
CAR PARK – RENT OUT TO THIRD PARTY, PROPERTY LAW – STRATA TITLE – COMMON PROPERTY
Sale of carparks for rental business in a strata property
9 December ,2020
Categories
Recent Legal Updates
EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS
30 March ,2026
In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.
DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE
30 March ,2026
In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.
FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL
30 March ,2026
In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.
HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION
30 March ,2026
In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.
MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE
30 March ,2026
In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.
MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM
30 March ,2026
In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.
ZH 
EN 
MY