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。

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）（

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

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

“……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

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 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

Malaysia’s decision to permit cross-border exports of renewable electricity is emerging as a significant opportunity for regional energy investors. Following the publication of the third edition of the Guide for Cross-Border Electricity Sales (CBES Guide), developers are increasingly evaluating privately sponsored, project-financed renewable projects designed to supply Singapore’s electricity market. This alert outlines the principal legal and regulatory considerations rele