Federal Court Clarifies The Limits In ISM v Queensway Nominees The Federal Court has clarified an important boundary in Malaysia’s minority oppression regime: a dispute between shareholders does not become an oppression claim merely because it arises from a shareholders’ agreement. In ISM Sendirian Bhd v Queensway Nominees (Asing) Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2026] MLJU 1467, the apex court revisited its earlier decision in Jet-Tech Materials Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yushiro

The role of the General Counsel (GC) is changing. Once regarded principally as a company’s legal gatekeeper, a GC is no longer merely responsible for contracts, disputes and regulatory compliance. The modern GC is increasingly expected to operate at the intersection of law, business strategy and enterprise risk. This shift reflects a commercial reality: the most significant risks confronting businesses rarely remain confined to neat legal categories. A contractual issue can

在2025年第1830号裁决中，工业法庭驳回了 Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan（工会）依据《1967年工业关系法》（Industrial Relations Act 1967, 简称 “IRA”）第56条，对 DCH Contract Manufacturing Sdn Bhd（公司）提出的不遵守申诉。 本案争议涉及公司被指未根据第4份集体协议（CA）第26条的规定，向六名工会会员支付2021年度花红。 工业法庭裁定，公司并未违反该集体协议，且其对绩效评级最低（即E级）的员工不发放花红，属依法行使其酌情权。 公司由本所资深律师 Muhamad Sharulnizam bin Mohd Roni 代理并胜诉。 该裁决就集体协议中花红条款的解释、雇主在绩效导向花红机制下酌情权的范围，以及《1967年工业关系法》第56条不遵守程序中的举证责任，提供了有益指引。 本案争议焦点 工会指称，公司违反了集体协议第26条。该条款规定如下： ...

Can a debt of RM70,000.00 be discharged by 50 units of Litecoin? This novel question was recently answered by the Court of Appeal in Ong Seow Lee v Lee Ee Foong [2026] MLJU 3331, where this ruling offers timely guidance on the intersection between digital assets and the long-established law of accord and satisfaction under the Contracts Act 1950. Background The Appellant, Ong Seow Lee, and the Respondent, Lee Ee Foong, were friends who embarked on a joint venture to mine

“For stamp duty purposes, the label placed on a document is rarely decisive. What matters is what the instrument actually does, the rights and obligations it creates, and the transaction it records.” Stamp duty is often treated as a back-office compliance issue. In practice, it is becoming a much broader governance concern. This is especially so as businesses generate large volumes of documents across procurement, treasury, human resources and commercial functions. Employme

引言 上诉庭在 Veronica Sainik @ Ronald v Meluha Life Sciences Sdn Bhd & Ors（民事上诉号 W-02(IPCv)(W)-1713-09/2022）中的判决，标志着马来西亚知识产权法的一个重要发展，特别是在作者精神权利的范围和执行方面。该案涉及了一个具有日益增长的商业重要性的问题：当研究成果被商业化利用，甚至被纳入专利，而没有对其作者进行适当署名时，会发生什么？ 在允许该上诉时，上诉庭确认，作者根据《1987年版权法》第25条所享有的精神权利，尽管版权已被转让，仍然可予执行。更重要的是，法庭认定，在专利申请中未经授权使用和修改研究者的论文，构成了对精神权利的侵权，并且由于相同的底层事实，也导致了该专利因缺乏新颖性而无效。 简要事实 本案原告是马来亚大学的一名研究生，并参与了一个名为“从牙髓中分离、鉴定和多向分化产后干细胞”的合作项目，涉及该大学和行业合作者。作为该项目的一部分，原告进行了研究，收集了数据，并撰写了一篇包含原创性研究方法、实验数据和科研发现的硕士论文。...

Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) occupy a distinctive position within Malaysia's corporate landscape. As defined by the government, GLCs are companies that have a primary commercial objective, but where the Malaysian government has a controlling stake in major decisions, such as appointment of management positions, contract awards, strategy, restructuring and financing, acquisition and divestments.[1] Unlike privately owned corporations, GLCs are entrusted not only with gen

For creditors and investors in Malaysia’s Islamic finance market, the existence of a Shariah-compliant structure does not, by itself, answer the most important question when a transaction runs into difficulty: what can the creditor actually enforce? The answer requires a distinction between two forms of protection. The first is contractual and proprietary protection, created through security over assets or other credit-support arrangements. The second is statutory protect

引言 2025 年底，联邦法院在 Victor Saw Seng Kee (As joint liquidator of London Biscuits Bhd) (In liquidation) v Wong Weng Foo & Co & Anor and other appeals [2025] MLJU 3886 一案中，推翻了上诉庭此前在四宗相关上诉中的裁决，从而对马来西亚清盘法中的若干重要问题作出了具有系统性意义的阐释。该判决的重要性在于，联邦法院一共回答了八项法律问题，并在此过程中对清盘制度中若干长期存在但相对未被充分厘清的议题作出了进一步说明，其中尤以两项议题最具核心意义：其一为法院在何种情形下得以撤换清盘人，其二则为联合清盘人制度下清盘人权力之范围与行使方式。本文即围绕上述两项核心问题展开分析。 高庭阶段的诉讼经过 London Biscuits Berhad（“LBB”）于 2020 年 1 月 13 日被高庭作出清盘令，并委任 Lim San Peen（“LSP”）为唯一清盘人。其后，LSP 于 2021 年 5

Last Monday, the Court of Appeal in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Exceptional Landmark Sdn Bhd unanimously dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the concurrent decisions of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) and the High Court that the gains arising from the disposal of a warehouse to a real estate investment trust (REIT) are not subject to income tax. The taxpayer in this matter was successfully represented by the firm's Tax, SST & Customs Partner, S.

The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt to use Malaysian court proceedings to challenge an adverse World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) domain-name determination, holding that the Malaysian courts cannot be used as a back-door avenue to overturn an international administrative decision where there is no independent domestic cause of action. In Junzhi Wang & Anor v T C Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd [2026] MLJU 1306, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court

Last week, the High Court quashed a RM 313 million additional tax assessment raised against a taxpayer who had elected for joint assessment with her late husband. The court held that the assessment was illegal and irrational and amounted to double taxation. In NAK v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri, the High Court allowed the taxpayer's judicial review application and quashed the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) Notice of Additional Assessment (Form JA) for the year of assessm

要约函（LO）通常是连接非正式协议与正式合同的桥梁，特别是在房地产、采购和合资企业领域。尽管企业可能将其视为交易的最终结果，但其法律效力并非自动产生；它取决于双方的意图和有效的接受。这无疑存在一个法律灰色地带。签署后的要约函常被误认为是具有约束力的合同，但它可能仅相当于一个初步框架，从而引发了一个问题：它究竟是产生了法律义务，还是仅仅表明了谈判的意图。 在法律上，具有约束力的合同需要要约、接受、对价以及建立法律关系的意图。只有当接受明确且毫无歧义时，要约函才满足这些要件。 这种情况很少有明确的界定。最近在Mutiara Orient Sdn Bhd v Penang Port Sdn Bhd [2026] 1 AMR 473一案中，高等法院认定合同未形成：该要约函未按其条款被接受，而且已失效并被有效撤销。该案凸显了谈判与义务之间存在一个取决于具体事实的界限。 若未被接受，要约函可能仍不具有约束力；但经适当接受后，则可转化为可强制执行的合同。 案情背景 该争议源于槟城瑞典咸码头（Swettenham Pier Cruise Term

Traditionally, corporate governance has been viewed through a relatively narrow lens: the board of directors is the custodian of governance, responsible for overseeing management, protecting shareholders' interests and ensuring that the company complied with its legal and regulatory obligations. Other stakeholders, however, were often only seen as external participants whose role was limited to engaging with the company only when their own interests were directly affected.

Malaysia is set to overhaul its competition law regime through two companion pieces of legislation: the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2026 (CA Bill) and the Competition Commission (Amendment) Bill 2026 (collectively, Bills). Together, the Bills aim to widen the reach of Malaysian competition law, strengthen the current Competition Commission (CC) investigative and enforcement powers, and rename it as the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC). Both Bills passed all three readi

The High Court has delivered an important decision for businesses investing in digital transformation, confirming that expenditure incurred on the development, customisation and upgrading of banking software may qualify for both capital allowance (CA) and accelerated capital allowance (ACA) under Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA). In dismissing the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) appeal, the High Court in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v M Bank upheld the decision

马来西亚联邦法院近期在 Lee Kean Choon v Khoo San & Ors［民事上诉编号：01(f)-11-04-2025(B)］一案中，直面《国家土地法典》里一个看似技术性的问题：在计算法定上诉期限时，一项行政决定究竟应于何时视为"已经传达"？ 这个问题的答案影响深远。《国家土地法典》第418条规定，对土地主管部门所作决定提出的上诉，必须在三个月内进行。一旦逾期，即使实体理由充分，当事人也将丧失上诉权。 因此，本案的争议焦点不仅在于时间应如何计算，更在于：在法律后果开始发生之前，当事人究竟需要达到何种程度、何种质量的"知悉"？ 从"隐约察觉"到"正式通知" 本案的核心围绕着一种在实践中并不罕见的情形：当事人之间长期形成的私人安排，最终被正式的行政程序所取代。两名土地共有人长期以来依据一份数十年前的协议，长期以来一直按照约定将该土地实际分割使用。然而，当其中一方未向对方披露，径自向土地局申请正式分割土地并获批准时，这种非正式平衡被打破。 土地局于2020年8月批准了该分割申请但另一方对此一直毫不知情，直至2021年

Asset restraint orders are among the most powerful tools available to enforcement agencies under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA). A successful application under Section 53 effectively freezes a person’s ability to deal with assets situated outside Malaysia, often long before any determination of criminal liability. Given the far-reaching consequences of such orders, a

Recently, the High Court set aside the Industrial Court award which had found that an employee's dismissal was without just cause or excuse and ordered his reinstatement (albeit to a demoted position) together with back wages. The High Court held that the employee's persistent refusal to comply with a lawful and valid transfer order amounted to wilful insubordination, constituting a fundamental breach of the employment relationship that justified summary dismissal. This rul

近日，所得税特别委员法庭（Special Commissioners of Income Tax，简称“SCIT”）在 PSB 诉 马来西亚内陆税收局总监（Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri） 一案中裁定纳税人胜诉，并明确指出，在缺乏明确法定授权的情况下，内陆税收局（“税收局”）无权重构交易安排以取得更有利于征税的结果。特别是，SCIT裁定，当股份是在单一交易中以单一对价出售时，税收局无权将处置价格进行分摊。 SCIT进一步澄清，股份的取得日期仅与确定股份取得价格（acquisition price）有关，而与处置价格（disposal price）的计算无关。处置价格应严格限于纳税人因有关处置实际收取的 “金钱或金钱等值代价（money or money’s worth）” 。 案件背景 2018年9月13日，纳税人以象征性代价RM1购入PCSB全部已发行股本中的1股股份。 其后，于2018年9月28日，纳税人以RM470万购入一幅永久地契土地，并通过提名函（Nomination...