The Malaysia Competition Commission (‘MyCC’) is an independent body established under the Competition Commission Act 2010 to enforce the Competition Act 2010. The main role of MyCC is to protect the competitive process, benefiting businesses, consumers and the economy. Pursuant to s 66 of the Competition Act 2010, MyCC has the power to issue guidelines for the better carrying out of the provisions of the Competition Act 2010. These guidelines provide guidance on economic and legal analysis to be used in determining cases and principles to be used in determining any penalty or remedy imposed under the Competition Act.
The Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department has since officiated and implemented the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding, with it coming into operation on 1 January 2026. The Code of Practice is an important guideline to complement the enforcement of “light touch regulatory framework”. The Code of Practice sets out the ethical standards and minimum practices that all third-party funders in Malaysian arbitrations are expected to comply with when they fund arbitration claims in return for a share of the recovery.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reports that the 2026 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods (‘the List’) came into force on 1 January 2026 bringing about several major modifications.
The Online Safety Act 2025 (‘the Act’) comes into force 1 January 2026. It is an Act to enhance and promote online safety in Malaysia by regulating harmful content and providing for duties and obligations of the application service providers, content application service providers and network service providers. The Act was introduced to address harmful content by placing clear responsibilities on licensed service providers where it aims to make the internet safer for everyone in Malaysia by making service providers more responsible. This in turn safeguards the public from harmful online content.
The appellant, alleged that the respondents were negligent in several respects, including failing to properly diagnose foetal distress, failing to ensure the availability of a paediatrician or neonatal specialist, failing to have proper systems in place for emergency referral, and delaying the transfer of the newborn to a hospital with neonatal intensive care facilities. It was contended that these failures collectively resulted in hypoxic injury, leading to cerebral palsy.
The respondent, a Turkish company, exported steel reinforcing bar (‘rebar’) into Malaysia through its intermediary. The Malaysian Steel Association petitioned to the Minister of International Trade and Industry (‘second appellant’), pursuant to the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 (‘the CADD’), to conduct an anti-dumping investigation on rebar from Singapore and Turkey.
Written by Poovarasan Nalechami Introduction This case focuses on the scope of participation by creditors in judicial management proceedings under the Companies Act 2016 and the Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 (‘the CRM Rules’).…
The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation (‘the Convention’) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 2018, and subsequently came into force on the 12 September 2020. Malaysia being a signatory of the Convention, is desirous of ratifying the convention and thereby becoming a Party to the Convention.
Written by Farah Aqila Background The Court of Appeal has delivered a significant decision reining in the Industrial Court’s power to join or substitute non-employer companies in employment disputes. The ruling firmly restores the primacy…
The respondent, Ting Siu Hua, was appointed as a promoter or junket by the Huang Group, which operated arrangements with the Naga Casino in Cambodia. As a junket promoter, the respondent was entitled to commissions for bringing in affluent players, primarily from Sarawak to gamble at the casino. In early 2015, the respondent organised a two-day gambling trip for the appellant, Dato’ Ting Ching Lee, and four other individuals. At the appellant’s request, Huang Group extended credit facilities amounting to USD1.5 million and a rolling rebate of USD193,800 to enable gambling at the casino.
Following the trip, the appellant alleged that the respondent wrote and published or caused to be written or published defamatory statements in local Chinese newspapers and on social media alleging that the appellant and two other individuals owed gambling debts to the Huang Group. This led to a defamation suit filed by the appellant and the others against the respondent. The respondent counterclaimed, seeking recovery of the credit facilities extended for gambling form the appellant.
An exhausted cabin crew member vents on Instagram. A screenshot travels. A dismissal letter follows. Two years later, the Industrial Court delivers a reminder: private frustration is not gross misconduct that warrants dismissal.
On 3 December 2025, Malaysia’s House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) passed the Anti Bully Bill 2025 (‘the Bill’). The Bill aims to provide mechanisms to address complaints of bullying as well as prevention and management of bullying cases. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Tribunal for Anti-Bully as well as to raise awareness of bullying and the prevention of bullying.
The case arose when Sri Sanjeevan, after being detained under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (‘the POCA’), obtained a writ of habeas corpus on grounds that his detention contravened mandatory procedural requirements. The High Court found in his favour, and he sought damages for false imprisonment, arguing that the habeas corpus order proved the wrongful nature of his detention. However, his victory in the High Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal, leading to the present Federal Court appeal.
The focus of this case is on the extent of protection afforded to a subsequent purchaser or chargee under the Torrens system and the National Land Code. The dispute is on whether Malayan Banking Berhad, as a chargee who relied on the land register, acquired an indefeasible interest in land despite defects in the underlying transaction between the earlier parties. The courts were required to determine whether a bank has a legal duty to investigate prior sale transactions before accepting a charge, and what constitutes ‘good faith’ under s 340(3) of the NLC. The case reflects the tension between commercial certainty in land dealings and the protection of unregistered interests.
In Ross v Garvey, the co-owner brothers Matthew and Kyle Garvey listed their property for sale and negotiated directly with Daniel Ross, a realtor and developer. After rejecting Ross’s initial offer, Kyle emailed a ‘counter-offer’ from the brothers’ shared email account, attaching an amended version of the standard-form contract but without any signatures. Ross immediately accepted by email, signed the documents electronically, and Kyle responded with a thumbs-up emoji in a text message. The next day, Matthew intervened, stating he had neither reviewed nor approved the documents and that nothing had been signed. The Garveys later sold the property to third parties. Ross brought a legal action against the Garveys, arguing that the emailed counteroffer and the thumbs-up emoji via text message formed a binding contract.
The respondent was a registered manufacturer under the Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment Of Tax) Order 2018. However, as a franchise holder of locally assembled manufacturer for motorcycles (both below and above 250cc), the respondent was not eligible to claim for the exemption under PU(A) 210.
AIAC officially unveiled their AIAC Suite of Rules 2026 during Asia ADR Week in October 2025. The suite of rules is a comprehensive update to its institutional dispute-resolution framework, designed to be effective from 1 January 2026. This new suite spans multiple sets of rules covering arbitration, mediation, adjudication and domain-name disputes which represents a deliberate recalibration of the AIAC’s procedural architecture to align with global best practices, evolving market demands and Malaysia’s legislative context.
在任何以消费者为对象的商业经营环境中（例如零售业、酒店业或餐饮业），顾客与经营者之间的接触点，无论是在柜台、服务过程中或送餐时，往往左右整体消费体验。顾客自然期望获得令人满意的服务、合格的产品及公平的对待。如对相关事项感到不满，顾客有权提出质疑、要求澄清，或通过正规渠道提出正式投诉。本文旨在探讨消费者在维护其权利时可采取的正当行为，以及企业在交易出现问题时可采取的应对措施。
In any business operating in a customer-facing setting (such as retail, hospitality or food and beverage), the point of contact between customer and operator, whether at the counter, during service, or upon delivery, can often make or break the customer experience. Customers naturally expect satisfactory service, quality products, and fair treatment. Where they are dissatisfied, they have the right to raise concerns, request clarifications, or lodge formal complaints through proper channels. This article looks into both sides of the coin where it examines what the customer can do in protecting their rights and what businesses can do in the event a transaction goes awry.
Globally, eCommerce fraud is escalating, and Malaysia is no exception. In 2024 alone the Royal Malaysia Police logged 35,368 cybercrime cases tied to online scams, and in just the first three months of 2025 we’re already at 12,110 cases with losses totalling RM 573.7 million. Legal protections such as the Contracts Act 1950, Consumer Protection Act 1999 and the Penal Code attempt to cover the issue, but as of today, there’s no single, dedicated act governing eCommerce fraud. Meanwhile, Singapore and Australia have taken steps to curb scams with the Singaporean Technical Reference 76 and the Australian Scam Prevention Framework.