The appellant, alleged that the respondents were negligent in several respects, including failing to properly diagnose foetal distress, failing to ensure the availability of a paediatrician or neonatal specialist, failing to have proper systems in place for emergency referral, and delaying the transfer of the newborn to a hospital with neonatal intensive care facilities. It was contended that these failures collectively resulted in hypoxic injury, leading to cerebral palsy.
The respondent, a Turkish company, exported steel reinforcing bar (‘rebar’) into Malaysia through its intermediary. The Malaysian Steel Association petitioned to the Minister of International Trade and Industry (‘second appellant’), pursuant to the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 (‘the CADD’), to conduct an anti-dumping investigation on rebar from Singapore and Turkey.
Written by Poovarasan Nalechami Introduction This case focuses on the scope of participation by creditors in judicial management proceedings under the Companies Act 2016 and the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 (‘the CRM Rules’).…
The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation (‘the Convention’) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 2018, and subsequently came into force on the 12 September 2020. Malaysia being a signatory of the Convention, is desirous of ratifying the convention and thereby becoming a Party to the Convention.
Written by Farah Aqila Background The Court of Appeal has delivered a significant decision reining in the Industrial Court’s power to join or substitute non-employer companies in employment disputes. The ruling firmly restores the primacy…
The respondent, Ting Siu Hua, was appointed as a promoter or junket by the Huang Group, which operated arrangements with the Naga Casino in Cambodia. As a junket promoter, the respondent was entitled to commissions for bringing in affluent players, primarily from Sarawak to gamble at the casino. In early 2015, the respondent organised a two-day gambling trip for the appellant, Dato’ Ting Ching Lee, and four other individuals. At the appellant’s request, Huang Group extended credit facilities amounting to USD1.5 million and a rolling rebate of USD193,800 to enable gambling at the casino.
Following the trip, the appellant alleged that the respondent wrote and published or caused to be written or published defamatory statements in local Chinese newspapers and on social media alleging that the appellant and two other individuals owed gambling debts to the Huang Group. This led to a defamation suit filed by the appellant and the others against the respondent. The respondent counterclaimed, seeking recovery of the credit facilities extended for gambling form the appellant.
An exhausted cabin crew member vents on Instagram. A screenshot travels. A dismissal letter follows. Two years later, the Industrial Court delivers a reminder: private frustration is not gross misconduct that warrants dismissal.
On 3 December 2025, Malaysia’s House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) passed the Anti Bully Bill 2025 (‘the Bill’). The Bill aims to provide mechanisms to address complaints of bullying as well as prevention and management of bullying cases. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Tribunal for Anti-Bully as well as to raise awareness of bullying and the prevention of bullying.
The case arose when Sri Sanjeevan, after being detained under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (‘the POCA’), obtained a writ of habeas corpus on grounds that his detention contravened mandatory procedural requirements. The High Court found in his favour, and he sought damages for false imprisonment, arguing that the habeas corpus order proved the wrongful nature of his detention. However, his victory in the High Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal, leading to the present Federal Court appeal.
The focus of this case is on the extent of protection afforded to a subsequent purchaser or chargee under the Torrens system and the National Land Code. The dispute is on whether Malayan Banking Berhad, as a chargee who relied on the land register, acquired an indefeasible interest in land despite defects in the underlying transaction between the earlier parties. The courts were required to determine whether a bank has a legal duty to investigate prior sale transactions before accepting a charge, and what constitutes ‘good faith’ under s 340(3) of the NLC. The case reflects the tension between commercial certainty in land dealings and the protection of unregistered interests.
