RDS Partnership is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q3 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 1) Force Majeure At Sea: Lessons From The Suez Canal And The Strait Of Hormuz by Chelsea Ho & Nagarajah Muttiah

An adverse regulatory decision can have consequences extending far beyond the immediate penalty or direction imposed. For businesses operating in heavily regulated sectors, such a decision may affect licences, ongoing projects, commercial arrangements and, in some cases, the viability of the business model itself. Yet challenging the regulator is rarely a straightforward legal decision. It requires businesses to weigh legal merits against timing, cost, reputation and the lo

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

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。...

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

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

Malaysia has passed the Mediation Act 2026, which is designed to give teeth to mediated settlements that cross borders. It builds on a United Nations (UN) treaty known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation and it changes what happens when a commercial dispute is settled through mediation but one side later refuses to honour the deal. From Signature To Statute When the Singapore Convention opened for signature on 7.8.2019, Malaysia was among the countries that signed on

The recent High Court decision in Loi Yap Loong v Harald Richard Hemming & Ors [2026] MLJU 1368 serves as an important reminder that commercial transactions must be characterised according to what the parties actually agreed at the time and not according to explanations developed after litigation begins. Rejecting an attempt to retrospectively recast an outright share transfer as a trust, the High Court reaffirmed that ownership recorded in a company's register carries sign

Judicial management is intended to rescue financially distressed companies, not merely postpone their inevitable collapse. By imposing a statutory moratorium and allowing an independent judicial manager to take control of the company, the regime seeks to preserve value while providing breathing space for corporate restructuring. However, corporate rescue inevitably comes at a cost. Once a judicial management application is filed, creditors' enforcement rights are significan

From an early stage, a practical question arose: where an unsecured creditor objects to a judicial management (JM) application, does such creditor have the right to appear and oppose the application before the Court? Neither the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) nor the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 (CRM Rules) expressly address this issue, and differing approaches had emerged at the High Court level. The position at the appellate level was subsequently consi

The Malaysian judiciary has recently taken a significant institutional step towards strengthening Malaysia’s position as a regional dispute resolution centre through the establishment of the International Commercial and Admiralty Division (ICAD) at the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. Announced during the Opening of the Legal Year 2026 by the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, the initiative signals a deliberate policy direction

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

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

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

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

“……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

When a party repudiates a contract, the innocent party faces an election: to affirm the contract and insist on performance, or to accept the repudiation and treat the contract as discharged. Repudiation alone does not terminate the contract; termination occurs only when the aggrieved party accepts the repudiation. A longstanding question has been whether acceptance must be expressed, or whether it may arise through conduct, particularly through a failure to perform further

Beneath the glamorous and fast-paced veneer of the corporate world lies a creeping anxiety among directors: that a single lapse in judgment or a wrong commercial decision could lead to their professional crucifixion. This alert seeks to quell such unease by unpacking a foundational doctrine in Malaysian corporate law, namely the business judgment rule and by setting out the confines within which directors may safely exercise their discretion without attracting liability.

The Federal Court delivered a significant clarification of the doctrine of total failure of consideration, restoring analytical discipline to an area of law that had drifted into uncertainty. In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou & Another Appeal [2025] 10 CLJ, the court disentangled restitutionary principle from contractual termination and, in doing so, has reset the architecture of Malaysian unjust enrichment jurisprudence. At issue was a deceptively technical question:

Compulsory land acquisition often sits at the crossroads of constitutional protection and statutory rigidity. While Article 13 of the Federal Constitution guarantees a fair and adequate compensation in the realm of land acquisition, that constitutional promise may collide with the procedural trapdoors embedded within the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA 1960). For a dissatisfied landowner, the path to contesting the Land Administrator's award is not a simple plea for equity b