MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE & VICARIOUS LIABILITY – VACUUM EXTRACTION GONE WRONG: COURT HOLDS HOSPITAL LIABLE FOR CHILDBIRTH INJURY
The Court of Appeal decisively overturned the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the critical importance of accurate medical documentation and proper patient counseling. The hospital was held vicariously liable for its medical officer’s negligence, highlighting a clear judicial stance on protecting patient rights during childbirth procedures.
LAND LAWS – FEDERAL COURT SHIELDS BANKS – NO EXTRA HOMEWORK REQUIRED IN LAND LOANS!
In a landmark ruling, the Federal Court in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 6 MLJ 220 has reaffirmed that banks are not obligated to investigate past transactions beyond the land register before granting a loan. The case, which involved a dispute over land ownership and mortgage validity, clarified that under the Torrens System, a bank conducting a proper land search can rely on the registered title unless fraud is proven. This decision strengthens protection for lenders, ensuring that financing transactions remain efficient and commercially practical without the burden of additional due diligence on prior dealings.
ROAD ACCIDENT – MOTOR INSURANCE CLAIM – FEDERAL COURT TO INSURERS – NO MORE DELAYING THIRD-PARTY PAYOUTS!
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.
TRADEMARK – BUSINESS SABOTAGE AND TRADEMARK MISUSE
Businesses must be vigilant in protecting their contractual rights, brand identity, and operational control. In this case, unauthorized control over online booking platforms, misleading alterations to the hotel’s digital presence, and continued use of trademarks post-termination led to significant legal consequences. This ruling highlights the importance of clear agreements, strict compliance with contractual obligations, and proactive enforcement of intellectual property rights.
NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES
The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.
SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY
In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.
EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW
The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.
LEGAL UPDATES – INTERNATIONAL TRADE – LEGALITY OF THE 24% U.S. TARIFF ON MALAYSIAN EXPORTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW
1. Background: In 3.4.2025, the United States imposed a sweeping 24% ad valorem tariff on virtually all Malaysian exports to the U.S., on top of a new 10% universal baseline import duty. The measure was part of a broader “reciprocal tariff” policy by the U.S. government aimed at countries with significant trade surpluses and alleged […]
REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I
This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.
ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM
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.
ZH 
EN 
MY