A Letter of Offer (LO) often bridges informal agreement and formal contract, particularly in property, procurement and joint ventures. While businesses may treat it as a deal’s conclusion, its legal force is not automatic; it depends on intention and valid acceptance. This certainly masks a grey area. A signed LO is frequently mistaken for a binding contract, yet it may amount only to a preliminary framework, raising the question of whether it creates obligations or merely si

近日，上诉庭一致裁定允许一名纳税人的上诉，确认其可就为兴建高尔夫球场及休闲设施所支出的 1 亿4,100万令吉资本开支可申索资本津贴。 背景 该纳税人在柔佛经营一家高尔夫及休闲俱乐部。于2010课税年度（YA 2010），纳税人就兴建以下项目产生资本开支, 统称为“争议项目”： 高尔夫球场（包括排水系统、草皮及铺设工程、土地成本、维修工坊、高尔夫球车充电站、球袋站、球童站及其他附带费用） 游泳池 儿童戏水池 健身房 两个网球场 乒乓球室 儿童游乐区 更衣室 毛巾站及洗手间 多功能室 餐饮场所 阅读室 健康中心 专卖店及运动用品店 所得税特别委员会（SCIT）及高等法院均不允许纳税人就上述争议项目申索资本津贴，理由是依赖上诉庭在  Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Resort Poresia Sdn Bhd (2015) MSTC 30-090 一案中的裁决，该案曾裁定高尔夫球场属于营业场所，因此不符合“厂房及机器”（plant and machinery）的定义。 高等法院在本案中亦补充指出，只有在少

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 7) Carbon Credits In Malaysia – M&A And ESG Considerations For Businesses And Investors by Raphael Tay & Shivani Sivanesan

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 6) Global Minimum Tax (Pillar Two): Implementation in Malaysia by Amira Ahmad Azhar & Dharshini Sharmaa

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 5) Artificial Intelligence Governance In Malaysia: From Existing Legal Protections To Future Regulatory Obligations by Lim Zhi Jian & Evien See

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 4) The Unchanging Foundation Of Islamic Finance: A Maqasid Al-Shariah Perspective by Hurriyyah Kamaruzzaman & Nur Iman Mohd Radzi

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 3) From Doctor To Hospital To PIC: A Significant Shift In Medical Liability by Vinayak Sri Ram & Genevieve Vanniasingham

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 2) Malaysia – Singapore Renewable Electricity Exports: Legal And Regulatory Considerations For Investor by Kamilah Kasim & Cheryl Ng Wen Xuan

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 1) Revisiting The Doctrine Of Total Failure Of Consideration: The Federal Court Decision In Lim Swee Choo & Anor V Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong And Another Appeal by Rosli Dahlan & Ho Yu Fei

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 1) Revisiting The Doctrine Of Total Failure Of Consideration: The Federal Court Decision In Lim Swee Choo & Anor V Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong And Another Appeal by Rosli Dahlan & Ho Yu Fei 2) Malaysia – Singapore Renewable Electricity Exports: Legal And Regulatory Considerations For Investor by Kamilah Kasim & Cheryl Ng Wen Xuan 3) From Doctor To

“……首先，该问题涉及对财产的剥夺。《联邦宪法》第13(1)条保障任何人不得在非依法情况下被剥夺其财产。在理解与适用该项保障时，应当倾向于维护而非否定该保障。除非且直至有明确的明文条文限制在任何剥夺财产的程序中之参与权，否则任何相关法律均应被解释为允许，甚至鼓励该等参与。否则，就财产被剥夺所支付之赔偿是否充分，可能会受到影响。” —— 联邦法院于  Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 195   马来西亚《联邦宪法》赋予其公民若干基本权利。其中，财产权受《联邦宪法》第13条之特别保障。财产权本质上包括在不受干预之情况下使用及享有其财产之权利。然而，第13条所提供之保障并非绝对，因为该条文本身亦规定可对该权利作出限制：   “ (1) 任何人不得在非依法情况下被剥夺其财产。 (2) 任何法律不得在未给予充分赔偿之情况下规定对财产之强制征用或使用。”   《1960年土地征用法令》即为其中一项规范土地征用之法律，其目的在于规范土地征用之程序、挑战征用程序

The Online Safety Act 2025 (ONSA) came into force on 1 January 2026. Malaysia has now joined a growing group of jurisdictions that do not leave online safety to platform discretion alone. With the coming into force of ONSA, Parliament has introduced a statutory framework aimed squarely at how licensed online service providers manage harmful content, respond to complaints, and design safety into their systems. Over the past decade, digital platforms have become central to comm

Recently, the High Court in CMSB v KPHDN  delivered an important ruling on the tax treatment of interest income arising from instalment sales. The Court held that such charges should be treated as business income under Section 4(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) rather than as interest income under Section 4(c).   The dispute centred on the proper interpretation of Section 24(5) of the ITA, in particular whether the two limbs of the provision operate disjunctively and how t

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Yeoh Tseow Suan v Musa Hassan  [2026] 3 CLJ 593 marks an important development in Malaysian defamation law, particularly in its treatment of public officials, political discourse, and the limits of permissible speech. The case is significant not merely for its outcome, but for its careful doctrinal clarification across several contested areas, most notably the scope of the Derbyshire principle, the threshold requirements of defamation, and th

于2025年2月15日，本律所高级合伙人拿督 DP Naban 于马来亚银行（Maybank）主办之第十届《2025年交易与治理大会》（10th Dealing & Governance Conference 2025）上，参与题为“家族办公室：跨世代财富转移之重大趋势”的专题论坛。与其同台参与讨论者包括： — Bernard Yap（安永 Ernst & Young 税务合伙人）； — Ramesh Manimekalanandan（马来亚银行集团财富管理部产品与投资主管）。 该专题论坛汇集税务及财富管理领域之专业见解，重点探讨高净值家族在马来西亚设立单一家族办公室（Single Family Office, “ SFO ”）时所需考量的最新发展与策略重点。讨论核心涵盖森林城市特别金融区（Forest City Special Financial Zone, “ FCSFZ ”）项目下新近推出之税务激励措施、SFO 的最优架构安排，以及相应之投资控股实体，单一家族办公室载体（Single Family Office Vehicle, “ SFO

A recent ruling by the Federal Court in Lee Kean Choon v Khoo San & Ors  [Civil Appeal N0: 01(f)-11-04-2025(B)], confronts a seemingly technical question under the National Land Code (NLC): when is a decision “communicated” for the purpose of triggering the statutory deadline for appeal?   The answer carries considerable weight. Section 418 of the NLC imposes a strict three-month window to challenge decisions made by land authorities. Miss that deadline, and the right to appe

高等法院在 Asia Media Sdn Bhd（清盘）（清盘后申请编号 WA-28PW-356-06/2024） 一案中的最新裁决，提供了一个及时的提醒：当公司进入清盘程序时，真正掌握主动权的是谁。该裁决阐明了在《2016年公司法》第477条下，在委任私人清盘人时，应如何衡量债权人意愿。长期以来，该条文在司法酌情权的运用上存在一定的模糊空间，也因此引发不少争议，而本案正好对此提供了更清晰的指引。   在 Asia Media  一案中，争议表面上并不特别：公司已被裁定清盘后，出现两组相互竞争的私人清盘人提名。多数股东 MMM Group Berhad 提名 Andrew Heng 与 Ashvin Mahendran担任清盘人。   少数债权人 Peakmax Sdn Bhd 则提出其自身提名人 Tee Siew Kai。然而，投票结果具有决定性。MMM 持有超过95%的已承认债务，并在债权人会议上获得99.72%的支持；Peakmax 仅占0.28%。   一项熟悉的法律原则，再次被强调   第477条赋予法院在清盘后任命中的广泛酌情权。马来

In Award No. 1830 of 2025, the Industrial Court dismissed a non-compliance complaint brought by Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan (the Union) against DCH Contract Manufacturing Sdn Bhd (the Company) under Section 56 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA).   The dispute concerned the Company’s alleged failure to pay a bonus for the year 2021 to six union members pursuant to Article 26 of the 4th Collective Agreement (CA).   The Industrial Court held t

The rapid growth of the social media economy has transformed online influence into a viable profession. In response, the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (IRB) issued a new guideline on 14 January 2026 clarifying the income tax treatment of earnings derived from influencer activities.    The guidelines aim to assist taxpayers and administrators in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) in the context of digital content creation and social media

The relationship between medical evidence and employment decisions is becoming an increasingly delicate one. A recent High Court decision illustrates how easily employers can misstep when illness, workplace expectations and legal obligations collide.   In Sunshine Bread Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Auric Flavours Sdn Bhd) v Tan Seng Kok [2025] MLJU 4354, the High Court affirmed that an employee dismissed while recovering from severe illness had been terminated without just caus