Many parties assume that if a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) has not been signed, there is no binding deal because the document remains “just a draft”. A recent Court of Appeal decision suggests the position may not be so simple. In Chia Seong Pow v Alexma Corp Sdn Bhd [2026] MLJU 658, the Court of Appeal held that a binding contract for the sale of land may arise even where the SPA was never formally executed. The court’s focus was not on whether the agreement carried t

短语“时间至关重要” (Time is of the essence) 已变得极为普遍，以致其几乎成为合同中的标准条款。这类条款是缔约双方普遍预期的，因为按时履行承诺是任何协议中的基本期望。通常，这类条款会附带罚则机制以确保履约。如果一方未能遵守约定的时间表，其通常需要向另一方作出赔偿。在建筑行业中，例如，此类罚则常以约定违约金（Liquidated Ascertained Damages，简称 LAD）的形式出现。 然而，此类标准条款的加入，虽旨在最大程度保障缔约双方的权益，却可能适得其反，尤其是在一方基于善意而容忍对方延迟履行的情形下。在此情况下，容忍方可能陷入一个尴尬境地, 鉴于合同已明确约定“时间至关重要”，诉讼时效可能自最早可能的时间点开始计算。当容忍方的耐心耗尽时，可能已被诉讼时效所限制。上诉庭最近在 Yeng Chong Realty Bhd（前称Yeng Chong Realty Sdn Bhd）诉 Edward Stanislaus De Silva 及其他人 [2024] MLJU 2995即为最佳例证。 案情 原告（高庭

The Court of Appeal in P G Doraisamy a/l P Gopal v AmInvestment Bank Bhd and other appeals [2026] MLJU 919 has recently revisited the interplay between the law of discovery under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 and the statutory secrecy obligations imposed under the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA 1991) and the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013), which clarifies the extent to which financial institutions and authorised depository agents may

Corporate bond issuances in Malaysia operate through a network of professional advisers responsible for structuring, disclosure and post-issuance monitoring. The integrity of this framework depends not only on the issuer, but on the accuracy and completeness of information disseminated to investors. The decision in Maybank Trustees Berhad (formerly known as Aseambankers Malaysia Bhd) v Amtrustee Bhd & Ors and other appeals [2020] 4 MLJ 405 stands as one of the most consequent

环境、社会与治理（“ESG”）考量正日益塑造企业的运营、投资及风险管理方式。起初，ESG 仅仅作为自愿性的企业责任，然而，如今ESG已融入监管体制、投资标准及利益相关方的预期之中。无论是在供应链、合资经营、服务安排还是各项交易中，合同正成为企业履行 ESG 承诺的关键机制。事实上，与ESG 相关的承诺与义务也可能被纳入特定的租赁协议（如维持“绿色建筑” 状态及符合其条件的义务）以及融资合同（如涉及可持续融资的情况）中。 随着监管与投资者审查的加强，以及声誉风险的提升，ESG合同已不再仅仅是 ‘良好实践’, 而是迅速成为一项‘商业要务’。有鉴于此，本文将探讨如何将 ESG 考量纳入商业合同及并购合同中，同时剖析其中涉及的核心法律问题，并为法律从业者在应对这一不断演变的领域中提供实用建议。 ESG条款的常见主题与趋势 环境 在制造业、物流业及基础建设领域的合同中，环境条款的普及率正显著提升。在此类合同中，各方可能会承诺减少温室气体排放、采用节能技术、使用可持续来源的材料，或与以科学为基础的气候目标保持一致。这些条款往往会援引第三方标准（如

The global investment landscape is undergoing a profound shift. For decades, countries competed primarily on low labour costs, tax incentives and manufacturing capacity. Today, investors are increasingly prioritising policy stability, skilled talent, innovation ecosystems and strategic partnerships capable of supporting long-term growth. Across Southeast Asia, competition for high-value investment is intensifying. Economies that succeed in the next industrial cycle will not

Corporate governance is, in formal terms, entrusted to a company’s board of directors. In practice, however, the exercise of decision-making power is often less confined. Individuals who are neither formally appointed nor publicly identified as directors may nonetheless play a decisive role in shaping corporate affairs. Malaysian company law recognises this reality and responds with an intentionally expansive conception of directorship, one that prioritises substance over f

2025年1月7日，马来西亚首相拿督斯里安瓦尔·易卜拉欣和新加坡总理黄循财见证了柔佛-新加坡经济特区（简称JS-SEZ）协议的正式签署。这一协议具有里程碑意义，旨在通过吸引高加值投资以及促进两国之间货物与人员往来，以加强跨境经济合作。 JS-SEZ的构想借鉴中国深圳经济特区。另外，柔佛州现已拥有其他经济区，即马来西亚依斯干达经济特区和覆盖了丰盛港的东海岸经济区。 JS-SEZ 是一项由柔佛州政府和新加坡共同发起的倡议，旨在加强柔佛和新加坡之间的贸易、投资和创新机遇，以加强双方的经济合作。JS-SEZ被设计成一座桥梁，使双方得以发挥各自优势，实现互惠互赢, 具体如下： 促进跨境流通 每天有超过30万人通过连接柔佛与新加坡之间的陆路关口跨越两国边境。这往往造成长时间延误，影响了两国之间商业交易的便利性。随着 JS-SEZ 的推行，双方政府希望通过引入新的免护照旅行系统以缩短通行时间。新山-新加坡捷运系统（RTS）的引入将加强经济一体化并缓解柔佛–新加坡大堤的拥堵状况。 推动双边经济增长 JS-SEZ发挥马来西亚和新加坡两国的优势，使企

In shareholder disputes, the boundary between corporate wrongs and minority shareholder oppression remains one of the more nuanced and frequently contested issues. Whilst the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) provides distinct remedies for a derivative action under Section 347 of the CA 2016 for wrongs done to the company to that of an oppression action under Section 346 of the CA 2016 for conduct specifically targeting minority shareholders, the two often overlap in practice, lea

马来西亚专利制度（依据《2022年专利（修正）法》及相关法规下）的重大改革已于2025年12月31日全面生效。 为此，专利注册官于2025年10月10日发布的通告（Notice 1/2025）确认，多项期待已久的条文连同新的附属立法将正式生效，从而引入一个更为透明且更具对抗性的专利制度框架。 这些变化对专利权人、申请人、代理人及产业相关利益方均具有广泛影响。以下为您整理的必知要点。 核心改革 A. 专利申请文件的公众查阅 根据《1983年专利法》第34(1)条，一旦专利申请已在官方公报上刊登后，注册官须在收取规定费用后，将提供广泛范围的专利申请资料供公众查阅。 可披露的信息范围极为广泛，当中包括： 申请人及代理人资料； 申请编号； 申请及优先权资料； 完整说明书（包括修正内容）； 所有权变更及许可登记资料； 检索及审查报告； 申请人与专利局之间的往来函件； 任何一方提交的专利及非专利文献引用。 在披露后，申请人可向正在商业实施该发明的相关人士发出书面警告，并可自警告发出之日，或在未发出警告的情况下自公布日起，要求赔偿。

Recently, the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) in PSB v KPHDN ruled in favour of the taxpayer and held that the Inland Revenue Board (Revenue) cannot, in the absence of clear statutory authority, reconstruct a transaction to arrive at a more favourable tax outcome. Particularly, the SCIT held that where shares are disposed of in a single transaction for a single consideration, the Revenue has no power to apportion the disposal price. The SCIT further clarified tha

Judicial review applications frequently turn on two threshold questions – whether the applicant possesses the requisite locus standi and whether the challenge has been brought within the prescribed time limits. These preliminary issues often prove determinative of whether the merits can be considered. This alert examines the Federal Court’s decision in Damien Thaman Divean & Anor v Majlis Eksekutif Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (Exco) & Ors [2026] CLJU 772 focusing on its tre

在商业世界中，董事如同一艘船的舵手，引导公司穿越平静与风暴之海。然而，若船长擅自挪用船上的宝库中饱私囊，会发生什么？这正是公司治理介入之处，其通过详尽的规章确保所有参与者行事时遵守公平原则。 什么情况下会构成公司资金的不当使用及其后果 董事对公司负有法定职责以及普通下的义务。董事对公司的控制权，尤其是在公司管理方面，是毋庸置疑的。因此，当董事在处理公司资产时，有义务不得滥用或不当利用其董事职权。非法挪用公司资金或谋取秘密利润违反上述职责，并可能导致该名董事承担个人法律责任，正如法院在 Simpson Wong 诉 Vas Car Auto Parts Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 355 一案中所强调的那样。该法院认为此类行为违反了信义义务和《2016年公司法》第213(1)条文下的法定义务。 滥用资金亦可在《刑事法典》下，构成刑事犯罪。，例如，侵占公司资金可能构成《刑事法典》第409条文的刑事失信罪，而为获取资金而作出虚假申报可能构成《刑事法典》第420条文的欺诈罪。另外，违反《2016年公司法》第213条文的行为，则可根

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in LEC v Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd (Appeal No. W-04(A)-423-09/2024) offers a pointed reminder of a principle often overlooked in workplace disputes: how an allegation is framed can determine the outcome as much as the facts themselves. In restoring the Industrial Court’s award, the appellate court reaffirmed that the Industrial Court’s role is anchored not in rigid legal formalism, but in equity, good conscience and the pra

For decades, the boardroom was viewed as a place of stability, where a relatively homogenous group of individuals, often drawn from familiar professional and social circles, oversaw management within a framework of legal compliance and commercial judgment. Corporate governance, in this traditional sense, was largely procedural: a system of directing and controlling, with success measured by how effectively the board ensured that management remained entrepreneurial yet complia

此案源于一宗备受关注的银行保密争议，当中涉及大众银行（Public Bank Berhad）与国家养牛公司（National Feedlot Corporation）、其集团公司及其董事拿督斯里莫哈末沙烈博士（下称“答辩人”）之间，就银行资料保密责任所引发的纠纷。核心争议为答辩人的银行机密资料被未经授权披露，并于2012年一场由国会议员拉菲兹南利召开的记者会上公开披露。 在该记者会上，拉菲兹披露了有关拿督斯里莫哈末沙烈博士为购买位于吉隆坡生态城（KL Eco City）的八个公寓单位而提交的贷款申请文件。尽管该贷款最终并未发放（该贷款要约已于2012年1月撤回），但有关文件的披露仍引发了关于财务不当行为的负面指控。 答辩人随后起诉大众银行，指控该银行违反法定、信托及合同上的保密义务，并索赔约 5亿6千万令吉。高等法院最初驳回诉讼，认定银行无需承担责任，但上诉庭随后推翻该判决，裁定大众银行违反保密义务，唯由于答辩人未能证明实际损失，仅判予1万令吉的象征性赔偿。 答辩人向联邦法院提出上诉，核心争议为大众银行是否应对其员工披露机密资料承担法

In the current volatile global climate defined by shifting geopolitical alliances, energy price shocks, and the lingering after-effects of the pandemic, the force majeure clause (FM) has transitioned from a sleepy boilerplate provision to the primary battleground of commercial litigation. For many businesses in Malaysia, there remains a pervasive, yet dangerous, assumption that an unforeseen event of sufficient magnitude automatically absolves a party of its contractual dutie

大多数建筑工程涉及长期法律争议，有时持续多年，且常包括各方提出无数诉讼、审裁、仲裁、上诉等。在此过程中，必然会有胜诉方和“落败方”。然而，当这些“落败方”因未清偿判决债务而面临被清盘的情况时，会发生什么呢 ？ 近期，在 Lucksoon Metal Works Sdn Bhd v Propel Synergy Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 110 案中，高等法院在一场涉及Lucksoon Metal Works Sdn Bhd（“原告“）的诉讼期间，驳回了一项 Fortuna 禁制令（即法院禁止债权人提交并提呈清盘申请的命令）的申请。 背景 该争议的核心围绕于位于马六甲的一项酒店开发工程（“项目”）。原告为分包商，负责包括铝覆层及幕墙系统的设计和安装等工作。被告 Propel Synergy Sdn Bhd 为原告的雇主。随后，原告、被告及与项目相关的其他各方之间产生争议。在提出 Fortuna 禁制令的申请时，原告的处境如下： a) 高等法院作出了有利于原告与被告的判决（其中原告需向被告支付约超过 RM1,000,000）（

Recently, the High Court allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against the decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) and held that the capital expenditure incurred on petrol station canopies and lighting qualifies as plant for the purposes of capital allowances under Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA). Brief Facts The taxpayer is in the retail and marketing of petroleum products through petrol stations across Malaysia. The taxpayer incurred capital expen

Introduction The Court of Appeal’s decision in Veronica Sainik @ Ronald v Meluha Life Sciences Sdn Bhd & Ors (Civil Appeal No. W-02(IPCv)(W)-1713-09/2022) marks an important development in Malaysian intellectual property law, particularly in relation to the scope and enforcement of an author’s moral rights. The case addresses a question of increasing commercial significance: what happens when research output is commercially exploited, or even incorporated into a patent, wi