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。