標籤: Federal Court

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.

PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT – TOO LATE, TOO LIGHT: GENTING’S DATA PRIVACY CHALLENGE FAILS ON TIMING

In Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Genting Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 822, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court ruling that had favoured Genting’s resistance to a personal data disclosure request. The appeal succeeded not on substantive privacy grounds, but because Genting’s judicial review was filed out of time and targeted what the court deemed a non-reviewable act. While the conflict between tax enforcement and personal data protection remains unresolved, the decision underscores a simple procedural truth: even strong claims can collapse if they miss the clock.

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – WHEN SILENCE HURTS: COURT SLAMS GOVERNMENT WITH RM2M+ IN AMPUTATION NEGLIGENCE SUIT

In L/Kpl Naraayanan Nair a/l Subramaniam v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2025] 8 MLJ 503, the High Court delivered a landmark ruling in a medical negligence suit involving a young police corporal who lost his arm due to delayed and negligent treatment. Citing emotional trauma, denial of timely access to medical records, and ongoing life-altering consequences, the court awarded over RM2 million in damages – including RM200,000 in aggravated damages – this shows the judiciary’s increasing emphasis on dignity, transparency, and rehabilitative justice in personal injury claims.