This case serves as a critical reminder that for sports bodies, strict adherence to their constitution and bylaws is paramount. It mandates the exhaustion of internal remedies like mediation before court intervention and underscores the fundamental necessity of procedural fairness in all decisions.
原告（一位股东兼董事）指控同样作为第三被告 Super Resources & Trading Sdn Bhd 股东兼董事的第一及第二被告，存在压迫行为且无视原告的利益。
In 2015, FIFA implemented a global ban on TPO agreements, which prohibited clubs and investors from sharing players’ economic rights.
RFC Seraing, which had entered into such arrangements with an investment fund, was sanctioned with fines and a transfer ban by FIFA. The club argued that the ban restricted competition and free movement under European Union (‘EU’) law and sought to challenge the arbitral award confirming FIFA’s sanctions.
Malaysian arbitration law has historically featured a debate on the available routes for enforcing foreign arbitral awards, specifically, whether award creditors could opt for direct enforcement under the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 or were required to pursue enforcement under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 framework after converting the award into a judgment abroad.
This case demonstrates that employers must provide fair reasons before terminating an employee. A dismissal cannot be justified by vague claims of poor performance when the employee is actively achieving the goals set out for them. The Industrial Court’s role is to protect workers against arbitrary termination and ensure the upholding of contractual rights, even in demanding industries like professional sports.
A contract was entered into by a company specialising in professional development services for athletes and an athlete who was 17 years old at the time. The contract required the athlete to pay the company a portion of his net income from basketball related contracts. The issue on unfair terms in contracts arose in this case.
The recent decision by the High Court in Luno Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Yew See Tak has revisited and overturned key findings made at the Sessions Court, raising significant questions about the duty of care owed by cryptocurrency platforms to their users in the context of unauthorised transactions. This commentary analyses the High Court’s reasoning and its implications on digital asset platforms operating under Malaysian law.
In 2007, a Group decision to withdraw from the plantation business altogether required the Respondent to dispose of the lands. The Respondent subdivided the lands into smaller lots and sold the lands to various parties vide ten transactions between 2007 and 2017. The Respondent submitted Real Property Gains Tax (‘RPGT’) returns for the disposals, and the Inland Revenue Board (‘IRB’) issued Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 (‘the RPGTA’) assessments and RPGT certificates from 2011 to 2018.
In 2019, after a tax investigation, the IRB took the position that the proceeds of the disposals were subject to income tax under s 4(a) of the Income Tax Act (‘the ITA’).
In 2020, the IRB, without first discharging or revoking the RPGTA certificates and assessments, raised Notices of Additional Assessment against the Respondent, imposing income tax and 60% penalties (more than RM81 million).
Written by Lim Tse Hwei and Kam Sue Herng. Keysight Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Director General of Inland Revenue [2025] 1 CLJ 883 Held in the Court of Appeal (“COA”) whereby the date of…
Written by Lim Tse Hwei and Ashley Yip. MEDAN PRESTASI SDN BHD v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI [S-01(A)-554-09/2021] Held in the Court of Appeal (“COA”). Legal Issue Are the gains received by the Taxpayer…
