Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

法律资讯

法律资讯

Filter by Category
运输法

MARITIME LAW – SOYBEANS, SALVAGE SALES AND SUIT RIGHTS: COURT CLARIFIES CARGO DAMAGE RECOVERY

In AMS Ameropa Marketing and Sales AG & Anor v Ocean Unity Navigation Inc (The “Doric Valour”) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389, the UK Commercial Court awarded US$293,755.10 for heat-damaged soybeans shipped from Louisiana to Egypt. Although only 70 – 80 mt of beans were physically damaged, 3,600 mt were reasonably treated as distressed and sold in a salvage sale at an 18% discount. The Court held that the assignee of the cargo receiver had valid title to sue, and that the salvage sale was a reasonable act of mitigation. Ancillary claims for warehousing, survey, and transport costs failed for lack of proof.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
运输法

SHIPPING – ADMIRALTY – FLOATING CASINOS AS COLLATERAL: COURT HOLDS GAMING EQUIPMENT FALLS WITHIN SHIP MORTGAGE

In KfW IPEX-Bank GmbH v Owner of the Vessel “World Dream” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 137, the Singapore High Court ruled that casino gaming equipment on board a luxury cruise ship formed part of the mortgaged vessel. The Court held that under long-standing admiralty principles, “ship” covers not only navigation gear but also items necessary for the vessel’s commercial adventure. As the World Dream was designed as a floating resort with gaming as a central attraction, the slot machines and casino tables were integral to its purpose and thus subject to the mortgage. The decision highlights the wide scope of ship mortgages and the importance of expressly addressing high-value movable assets in financing documents.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
合約法

BREACH OF CONTRACT – ACQUIESCENCE AND CLEAN HANDS: COURT OF APPEAL BARS PURCHASER FROM ENFORCING SPA

In Vila Mekar Sdn Bhd v Wong Yie Dee [2025] MLJU 2104, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s order for specific performance of a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). The Court held that the Purchaser’s attempt to terminate in 2010 was invalid, as he failed to pay the required compensation, and by acquiescing to the Developer’s delay, the SPA remained subsisting. Later, the Purchaser’s refusal to pay progress claims and termination of his housing loan constituted clear breach and repudiation. Emphasising the equitable maxim that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands,” the Court removed the Purchaser’s caveat and awarded costs to the Developer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
Constitutional Law

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT- BALLOT BOX VS SOPS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE

In Tamileswaaran a/l Ravi Kumar v Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 2371, the Court of Appeal held that the Election Commission acted unconstitutionally when it barred a COVID-positive voter from casting his ballot under SOPs issued during the Johor State Elections. The Court reaffirmed that the right to vote under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be curtailed by subsidiary legislation or administrative protocols. While acknowledging a breach, the Court declined to award damages as the Commission acted in good faith under extraordinary public health circumstances.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
Malaysian Case Law

DEFAMATION – LOCUS STANDI – WHEN SOCIETIES CAN’T SUE: IKRAM’S DEFAMATION CLAIM AGAINST RIDHUAN FAILS ON LOCUS STANDI

In Mahdzir bin Md Isa (suing as Pegawai Awam Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia) v Mohd Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah [2025] 10 MLJ 605, the High Court dismissed a defamation suit brought on behalf of Ikram, holding that a registered society lacks the legal standing to sue for defamation under the Societies Act 1966. While the Court accepted that the impugned Facebook postings were defamatory and unsupported by the defences of justification or fair comment, the claim was struck out at the threshold issue of locus standi. The judgment underscores a significant limitation: reputational protection under defamation law does not extend to unincorporated societies.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
海商海事

ADMIRALTY – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2

In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG (The “MSC Flaminia”) [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal’s restrictive “owner’s original loss” rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
Constitutional Law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CITIZENSHIP – CITIZENSHIP DENIED: HIGH COURT REFUSES TO LEGALISE CHILD TRADING

In Ow Man Yaw & Ors v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor [2024] 9 MLJ 77, the High Court dismissed an application for Malaysian citizenship brought by adoptive parents on behalf of a child obtained through an agent. The Court held that the child was not “abandoned” within the meaning of section 19B of the Federal Constitution but was instead the subject of a planned arrangement amounting to child trading. As such, the presumption of citizenship by operation of law could not be invoked. The Court further affirmed that applications under Article 15A rest solely with the Federal Government, beyond judicial intervention. The ruling underscores that the best interests of the child cannot override constitutional requirements or validate unlawful conduct.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
合約法

MONEYLENDERS ACT 1951- UNJUST ENRICHMENT OR ILLEGAL LOAN? COURT WEIGHS RESTITUTION AGAINST THE MONEYLENDERS ACT

In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2021] 12 MLJ, the Court considered whether a licensed moneylender, whose loan agreements were void for non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951, could nevertheless pursue restitutionary remedies. The plaintiff, having advanced RM3.5 million which was channelled to the defendant’s company, sought recovery on grounds of money had and received and unjust enrichment under the Contracts Act 1950. The defendant applied to strike out the claim, arguing that it was merely an indirect attempt to enforce an illegal loan. The case illustrates the delicate balance between statutory illegality under the Moneylenders Act and the equitable principles underpinning restitution.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
道路交通

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 224, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the claimants and set aside the High Court’s decision which had favoured the insurer. The Court held that Zurich was not entitled to repudiate liability under the motor takaful policy, as the alleged non-disclosures were not proven to be material or made dishonestly. Emphasising the principles of fairness and protection inherent in takaful, the Court ruled that technical omissions should not be used to defeat the rights of accident victims and their families.

Read More »
16 November ,2025
Constitutional Law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

Read More »
16 November ,2025

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

Categories

zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH