Malaysia

Azmi & Associates is pleased to announce the appointment of Airene Ho as Senior Counsel in the Firm’s Corporate & Commercial Practice Group, effective 15 January 2026. Airene Ho Eu Ghee Senior Counsel [email protected] Airene was admitted to the Malaysian Bar in 1997 and brings more than 25 years of legal experience spanning private practice and in-house leadership roles. She began her career as an Advocate & Solicitor, practising for seven (7) years before spending more than two decades in the corporate sector as General Counsel and Head of Legal for leading organisations. She has since returned to legal practice. During her time in private practice, Airene advised and represented a diverse clientele on complex corporate, commercial, intellectual property, and litigation matters. Her notable assignments include: Acted for a leading U.S. software company and secured a landmark software piracy decision against copyright infringers, reported in Malaysian media. Successfully defended an appeal on the assignment of debt, reported as Arab-Malaysian Bank Bhd v Teamsystems Interior Sdn Bhd [2004] 6 CLJ (Supp) 232. Led a team advising Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad, Malaysia’s national asset management company, on the recovery of non-performing loans during the 1997–2000 financial crisis. As an in-house counsel, Airene has advised on complex and high-value matters across multiple jurisdictions, including acquisitions, investments and divestments, joint ventures, strategic collaborations, and complex cross-border disputes. Her experience spans the real estate and life sciences / biotechnology sectors, where she served as a strategic adviser to Boards and senior leadership teams, delivering commercially aligned legal solutions to support organisational growth and resilience. She has also gained exposure to sustainability-related initiatives involving the voluntary carbon market. Drawing on her complementary experience in both private practice and in-house leadership, Airene is particularly passionate about transactions at the intersection of corporate, commercial, and intellectual property law, especially where business objectives align with environmental and sustainability priorities. Airene holds an LL.B (Hons) from the University of East London and an MBA. She has passed the Patent Agent Examination and is a MIM Certified Professional in Intellectual Property Management (MIM-CPIPM). This appointment reflects the Firm’s continued commitment to strengthening its leadership and delivering high-quality, commercially focused legal solutions. We are delighted to welcome Airene and look forward to her valuable contributions to the Firm and its clients. Corporate Communications Azmi & Associates 20 January 2026

Azmi & Associates is pleased to announce the appointment of Ahmad Hafiz Zubir as Partner, General & Intellectual Property (IP) Litigation Practice, together with the full consolidation of Hafiz Zubir & Co. (“HZC”) into Azmi & Associates, as well as the appointment of Hadi Mukhlis Khairulmaini as Partner within the Firm’s Litigation Practice Group, all effective 1 January 2026. This strategic move represents a deliberate step to accelerate growth in the Firm’s IP capabilities, broaden our offering in general civil litigation and SME corporate advisory, and expand our geographic footprint within the Bangi–Putrajaya corridor, an area of increasing commercial and innovation activity. With these appointments, the Firm now counts twelve (12) Partners within its Litigation Division, reflecting both the expanding scale and increasing sophistication of our dispute resolution and arbitration portfolio. This growth aligns with the Firm’s commitment to strengthening its position as a leading advocate in complex, high-value, and technically demanding legal matters. [caption id="attachment_54140" align="alignnone" width="210"] AHMAD HAFIZ ZUBIRGeneral & IP Litigation Practice [email protected][/caption] [caption id="attachment_54138" align="alignnone" width="210"] HADI MUKHLIS KHAIRULMAINILitigation Practice [email protected][/caption]   Ahmad Hafiz Zubir has been appointed as the Firm’s 29th Partner.   Hafiz is the founding and principal partner of HZC since 2018, where he has established a respected specialist practice in intellectual property (IP), litigation, and dispute resolution. Hafiz has authored and contributed to several practitioner-focused publications, reinforcing his standing in the IP legal community. He is the author of "A Practical Guide on Trademark Registration in Malaysia" book, which was published in November 2025 by Sweet & Maxwell (Thomson Reuters) Malaysia.   He holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) and a Master of Intellectual Property from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). He is currently pursuing a PhD, reflecting his strong commitment to thought leadership and the advancement of IP jurisprudence.   His experience covers a broad range of IP disputes, including copyright infringement involving creative works and design concepts; trademark disputes relating to misrepresentation, passing off, and brand ownership; patent infringement involving the unauthorised making, use, or commercialisation of protected inventions; and industrial design infringement concerning the replication of registered designs. He also regularly advises on disputes between former business partners, particularly where intellectual property assets are central to the conflict.   Hafiz works closely with enforcement authorities on IP infringement matters, including assisting the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN) in raids and anti-counterfeiting enforcement. He has also handled numerous licensing, commercialisation, and royalty engagements with higher learning institutions and research bodies, including UKM, particularly in matters involving technology transfer and IP monetisation.   Beyond legal practice, Hafiz is actively involved in professional development and training. He is a certified trainer with the Human Resources Development Corporation and contributes to capability-building initiatives aimed at promoting awareness, understanding, and responsible use of intellectual property across industries.   Previously, he was a Partner at Khairil Ahmad & Co. and Adnan Sharida & Associates, and began his legal career as a pupil at RamRais & Partners. His experience across multiple platforms has given him a well-rounded perspective on litigation, client advisory work, and firm leadership. The appointment of Hadi Mukhlis Khairulmaini marks the Firm’s 30th Partner, representing a strategic expansion of our litigation leadership bench.   Hadi is an accomplished civil and commercial litigator with robust experience across all levels of the Malaysian judiciary.   His portfolio includes significant exposure to high-stakes commercial, utilities-related, and public law disputes, reflecting both technical sophistication and practical litigation strategy.   His entry into the Partnership is expected to further elevate the Firm’s capacity to manage complex mandates and deepen client confidence in our dispute resolution services.   Prior to joining Azmi & Associates, Hadi served as a Partner at Messrs. Steven Thiru, bringing with him a highly regarded litigation pedigree and a strong track record in high-value and complex disputes.   Hadi holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) degree from Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), and was admitted to the Malaysian Bar in June 2009.   Over the course of more than 17 years in practice, he has developed extensive litigation experience spanning contractual and commercial disputes, negligence and tort claims, land and property matters, administrative and public law (including judicial review proceedings), employment and industrial relations disputes, as well as construction and infrastructure-related litigation.   He has consistently demonstrated courtroom credibility, having appeared regularly before the High Court and the appellate courts, including in a number of reported and precedent-setting matters. His advocacy style combines technical precision, sound judgment, and disciplined litigation execution.   Hadi began his legal career with Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok, where he completed his pupillage in 2008 and was subsequently retained as an Associate following his admission to the Bar. Over the course of seven years, he progressed to the rank of Partner, reflecting sustained performance, professional growth, and measurable client impact.   During his formative years at the firm, he received mentorship from Mr. Steven Thiru, former President of the Malaysian Bar, which helped him develop a robust foundation in complex civil and commercial litigation.     These appointments mark an important milestone in the Firm’s continued growth and commitment to excellence in intellectual property, litigation and dispute resolution. Please join us in extending a warm welcome to Ahmad Hafiz Zubir and his team, and Hadi Mukhlis Khairulmaini, as they embark on this new chapter with Azmi & Associates.   Corporate Communications Azmi & Associates 1 January 2026

Introduction The law governing aviation finance and leasing in Malaysia does not comprise a single uniform set of laws, but a complex, multilayered international and domestic legal framework. This complexity arises because aircraft are highly mobile assets that fly across country borders, while ownership rights and security interests over them are often grounded in national law. In this article, we will present to readers an overview of four layered legal framework relating to aviation finance and leasing transactions as follows: a. At the international level, an international treaty that creates a uniform legal framework for financing highvalue mobile equipment, especially aircraft, across different countries; b. At the contract level, the choice of law or governing law where the parties agree which country’s or state’s legal system will be used to interpret the contract and resolve disputes arising from it; c. At the national or country level, the law of Malaysia, as the country of registration of aircraft that implements the international treaty domestically dealing with international interests in mobile equipment, namely aircraft; and d. At the national or country level, the other laws of Malaysia dealing with all relevant legal and practical considerations of aircraft financing transactions. 1. International treaty - Cape Town Convention The single most important piece of the puzzle at the internation level is the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“the Cape Town Convention”) and its related Protocol (“the Aircraft Protocol”). This is an international treaty that has been ratified by over 87 countries including major aviation markets like USA, China, UK, France and Ireland. Essentially, the Cape Town Convention provides a uniform system for registration of security interests (mortgages, charges and leases) in high-value mobile equipment such as airframes and aircraft engines in a global centralised 24/7 electronic International Registry based in Dublin, Ireland. The Cape Town Convention reduces risk and legal uncertainty for creditors (chargees, lessors, conditional sellers under title reservation agreements), which in turn lowers the cost of credit, makes it easier for airlines and aircraft operators to acquire and finance aviation assets. While it provides creditors access to speedy remedies including interim relief and court assistance, the ultimate remedies every creditor can resort to are taking possession, selling or re-leasing of aircraft objects. It also establishes a structure of priority based on the system of registration and gives priority to those creditors whose security interests are registered with the International Registry over subsequently registered and unregistered interests. The Cape Town Convention provides specific insolvency-related remedies to protect creditors in the event of insolvency of debtors (chargors, lessees, conditional buyers under title reservation agreements). Every contracting state has the option to make a declaration to choose between two alternatives, Alternative A or Alternative B, that will guide the insolvency process relating to aircraft objects, with the former generally regarded as the stronger creditor-friendly regime as compared to the latter. The Cape Town Convention applies when, at the time of the conclusion of the agreement creating or providing for an international interest, the debtor relating to such interest is located in a contracting state. The fact that the creditor may be situated in a non-contracting state does not affect the applicability of the Cape Town Convention. The Cape Town Convention also applies where the aircraft object in question is registered in a contracting state. 2. Choice of law or governing law in contracts While the Cape Town Convention forms the foundation of aviation finance and leasing, parties to the transactions usually include a contractual clause that specifies which country’s or jurisdiction's laws will be used to interpret the relevant agreements (e.g., loan agreement, lease, aircraft mortgage, security assignment), the parties’ respective rights and obligations and the modes of dispute resolution if any dispute arises between them. This is commonly known as “choice of law” or “governing law” clause among lawyers. The choice of law or governing law clause does not decide where a dispute will be heard (that is a separate “jurisdiction” or “forum” clause), but it determines which substantive rules a court or tribunal will apply when deciding the disputes and what the parties’ rights and remedies are. Since aircraft purchases in Malaysia are very often funded through cross-border lending from the international financial centres based in London and New York, invariably the common choices for governing law in aircraft finance are the English law and the New York law. Undoubtedly the English law is the most prevalent choice as it has an established set of commercial case law and legal precedents. In recent years, the Irish law has been frequently used for operating leases because Dublin is a major hub for aircraft leasing activities. 3. International Interest in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft) Act 2006 Malaysia became a signatory to the Cape Town Convention and has ratified it on 1 March 2006. The Parliament of Malaysia enacted the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft) Act 2006 (“the IIME Act”) to implement the Cape Town Convention and the Aircraft Protocol with effect from 31 August 2006. Essentially, the IIME Act incorporates the provisions of the Cape Town Convention so that the international legal framework for secured financing and leasing transactions on aircraft objects operate as the Malaysian law at the national or country level. The IIME Act provides a mechanism for registration of international interests, prospective interests, and non-consensual rights through the International Registry, with priority being determined on a “first-to-file” basis. The IIME Act applies in respect of “aircraft objects” only, which are defined to mean airframes, aircraft engines and helicopters. Under the IIME Act, an “international interest in mobile equipment” means an interest in airframes, aircraft engines and helicopters (a) granted by the chargor under a security agreement; (b) vested in a person who is the lessor under a leasing agreement; or (c) vested in a person who is the conditional seller under a title reservation agreement. Malaysia has declared the following “non-consensual rights or interests” as having priority over registered international interests in respect of an aircraft object: (a) liens in favour of airline employees for unpaid wages after a default is declared by the airline under a contract to finance or lease an aircraft object, whether in or outside insolvency proceedings; (b) liens or other rights of a Malaysian authority relating to taxes or other unpaid charges arising from or related to the use of the aircraft object by the owner or operator of the object since the time of default by that owner or operator under a contract to finance or lease that aircraft object; and (c) liens in favour of repairers of an aircraft object in their possession. Malaysia has declared that Alternative A of Article XI of the Protocol shall apply. Under Alternative A, upon the occurrence of an insolvency-related event, the insolvency administrator or the debtor is required to give possession of the aircraft object to the creditor no later than the earlier of: (a) the end of the waiting period of 40 working days; and (b) the date on which the creditor would ordinarily be entitled to possession of the aircraft object. If the creditor wishes to procure the de-registration of the aircraft and procure the export and physical transfer of the aircraft object, the registry authority and the administrative authorities in a contracting state shall expeditiously co-operate with and assist the creditor in the exercise of such remedies within 5 working days after the date on which the creditor notifies such authorities that it is entitled to procure those remedies in accordance with the Cape Town Convention. 4. Other relevant legal and practical considerations * Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM): CAAM is a statutory body under the Ministry of Transport established to oversee and regulate all aspects of civil aviation in Malaysia. As Malaysia’s sole civil aviation regulator, CAAM is vested with the responsibility for technical, safety, security, and economic regulation of the civil aviation industry. This includes licensing, certification, air navigation services, and the regulation of commercial and economic matters, such as air service licensing, route allocation, oversight of airport charges and consumer protection. * Aircraft registry: CAAM manages aircraft registration and record keeping for all Malaysian-registered aircraft with information of aircraft owners, mortgages, mortgagors and mortgagees. Financiers should ensure that their mortgages are registered with CAAM. Before buying any Malaysian aircraft, buyers are advised to conduct searches in the aircraft register. Existing mortgages may be removed, and new ones entered, using application forms available in CAAM’s website. * Airworthiness and maintenance: The aircraft must maintain airworthiness as per CAAM’s requirements and remain properly registered with CAAM. Financiers may require maintenance covenants and regular status reporting from airlines or aircraft operators. * Insurance: Comprehensive hull and liability insurance with financiers’ names indorsed as the loss payee or the additional insured, and requirement for airlines or aircraft operators to provide and maintain up-to-date insurance policy certificates. * Insolvency law: If the airline or aircraft operator becomes bankrupt, the laws of its country of incorporation will come into play. The Cape Town Convention provides remedies which can override lengthy and creditor-unfriendly local insolvency procedures. * Tax law: Financing and security documents are subject to stamp duty under the Stamp Act 1949. Depending on the structure of financing, some exemptions or concessions may apply. * Contractual protections: The legal framework is supported by very practical, physical controls. These include: o Maintenance reserves: Contractual payments from airlines or aircraft operators to financiers or lessors to cover major maintenance events. o Technical monitoring: Financiers or lessors regularly monitor the aircraft's maintenance status and location. This article is authored by our Partner, Mr Cheah Soo Chuan and Senior Associate, Mr Khor Wei Wen. The information in this article is intended only to provide general information and does not constitute any legal opinion or professional advice. Written by: CHEAH SOO CHUAN Partner [email protected]     KHOR WEI WEN Senior Associate [email protected] LegalTaps December 2025

In the high-stakes arena of patent litigation, securing a judgment of infringement is often only half the battle. The second, equally critical half is the quantification of victory. For patent owners in Malaysia, a plain reading of the legislation presents a confusing anomaly. While most Commonwealth jurisdictions explicitly offer a choice between damages (compensation for loss) and an account of profits (gain-stripping from profits of infringement), the Malaysian Patents Act 1983 is silent on the latter. Patents Act 1983 Upon successfully proving patent infringement under the Patents Act 1983 (“Patents Act”), a patent owner is entitled to a range of remedies which are prescribed in Section 60(1) of the Patents Act, which reads: “Injunction and award of damages 60(1) If the owner of the patent proves that an infringement has been committed or is being committed, the Court shall award damages and shall grant an injunction to prevent further infringement and any other legal remedy”. Based on a literal interpretation of the provision, due to the word ‘shall’ the Court is mandated to award: 1. damages; 2. injunction (e.g. court order to compel infringers to immediately and permanently stop manufacturing and selling infringing products); and 3. any other legal remedy. Account of profits is not mentioned at all in the Patents Act, in stark contrast to the legislation of peer jurisdictions like the United Kingdom1 and Singapore2. The relevant statutes in both jurisdictions explicitly list both damages and account of profits as remedy options, as well as additional clauses disallowing a plaintiff from claiming both remedies simultaneously. The Malaysian Patents Act contains no such clauses, leading to the question: Does the remedy exist in Malaysia and, if so, can a plaintiff claim both award of damages and account of profits or must elect only one? An acknowledged right Despite the statutory silence, Malaysian courts have in numerous cases granted to successful plaintiffs the right to elect an award of damages or an account of profits, without referring specifically to Section 60(1) of the Patents Act. An example may be seen in a recent High Court decision in Kendek Products Sdn Bhd v Dip Chan Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [2024] 11 MLJ 75. Rules of the game One pick, zero mulligans Based on the well-established common principle in Malaysia, where both award of damages and account of profits are available, a plaintiff has to pick between one of them and once decided, no takebacks are allowed so as to avoid double recovery. In Karen Yap Chew Ling v Binary Group Services Bhd and another appeal [2023] 4 MLJ 792, a case on breach of confidence, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order granting both damages and an account of profits to the successful plaintiff. In Manjung Aquatic Sdn Bhd (In liquidation) & Anor v Mohamad Zahid bin Putera & Ors [2025] MLJU 2876, the High Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for general damages as the plaintiffs had earlier elected for an account of profits. An informed choice In Kingtime International Ltd & Anor v Petrofac E&C Sdn Bhd [2020] 11 MLJ 141, the High Court held that the court has a discretion under Order 24 rule 3(1) and/or rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 to grant a post-trial discovery order to enable a successful plaintiff to make an informed election between an assessment of damages and an account of profits. This is reflective of the principle that a party generally cannot be compelled to choose between the two remedies until they possess sufficient, readily available information. This ensures the election is an informed decision rather than a mere gamble or speculation. Reconciling the word ‘shall’ Since Section 60(1) of the Patents Act states that the courts "shall award damages", does this seemingly mandatory language eliminate the availability of an account of profits as a remedy in cases of patent infringement when considered together with the principle of election discussed above? It is interesting to note that the High Court in Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nuctech Co Ltd & Anor [2019] CLJU 1006 held that despite the word ‘shall’ in Section 60(1) of the Patents Act, courts have the discretion to not grant an injunction in patent infringement cases. Numerous judicial precedents illustrate this principle including the Federal Court decision in Tebin bin Mostapa v Hulba-Danyal bin Balia & Anor [2020] 4 MLJ 721 where it was held that the interpretation of any statutory provision must be guided by the purposive approach to ensure the legislative object is advanced and to prevent a literal reading from leading to an absurd or unjust outcome. In Benjamin William Hawkes v PP [2020] 5 MLJ 417, the Federal Court held that the word ‘shall’ is not always mandatory. It is also interesting to note that in the Federal Court case of Lim Phin Khian v Kho Su Ming @ Seng Meng [1996] 1 MLJ 1, one of the presiding judges opined that where great inconvenience or injustice will follow as a result of requiring strict compliance with a statute, the courts will be disinclined to hold that the provision imposes an obligation even though it may be couched in mandatory terms. Where does this leave us? At present, this issue is yet to be considered by the highest court of the land. Hence, there is no guidance addressing this conundrum. However, in light of the authorities discussed earlier, coupled with the term “any other legal remedy” in Section 60(1) of the Patents Act, an account of profits may well be a legitimate remedy available to patent owners who are successful in patent infringement actions. This article is authored by our Partners, Lee Lin Li, Ng Kim Poh, and Associate, Erin Yew Pui Yi. The information in this article is intended only to provide general information and does not constitute any legal opinion or professional advice. Written by: LEE LIN LI Partner [email protected]   NG KIM POH Partner [email protected]     ERIN YEW PUI YI Associate [email protected] 1 Sections 61(1) & (2) Patents Act 1977 (United Kingdom) 2 Section 67(1) & (2) Patents Act 1994 (Singapore) --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ LegalTaps December 2025