In an arbitration, jurisdictional challenges are commonly raised when a party contends that a particular claim does not fall within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

The Limitation Act 1953 provides the limitation period of 6 years where a plaintiff is allowed to enforce its rights against any contractual or tortious claim.

In 2016, the Company, facing serious financial difficulties, was forced to retrench the Appellants from service with the Company ("the retrenchment exercise"). At the time...

Quek Jian Long provides a commentary on a recent decision by the Court of Appeal on 15 July 2021 in Thomas Jothinayagam Harris v The Perak Chinese Maternity Association & Anor.

Recently, the Kuala Lumpur High Court in Government of Malaysia v Inoapps Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 2280 held that while it was bound by sections 103 and 106 of the Income Tax Act 1967 to enter a summary judgment ...

In Persatuan Kanak-Kanak Spastik Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan, the Court of Appeal (1) decided on two important issues that impact the arbitration scene in Malaysia.

The plaintiff was a sub-contractor employed by the defendant to carry out the basement carcass works for a construction project.

On 25 July 2022, the Malaysian Parliament passed the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Bill 2022 (‘the Bill'), which was subsequently granted the Royal Assent by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on 31 August 2022.

The case of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu vs. Malaysia has every reason to become a textbook source for international arbitration courses.

The 1st respondent ("Muafakat Kekal") was the developer of the residential condominium development known as Palm Spring Condominium @ Damansara ("the Condominium").

The Defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal had been dismissed.

The case involved ongoing proceedings in the Malaysian High Court and arbitration under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). An application for an anti-anti-arbitration injunction was subsequently.

On 9 April 2020, the ICC International Court of Arbitration issued its Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic ("Guidance Note").

The appellant ("MMS") was running a business of healthcare centres ("the said business") with the principal place of business at Bandar Baru Permas Jaya, Johor.

The 1st respondent ("Christopher") entered into a sale and purchase agreement ("SPA") with the applicant ("BODCO") to buy a building constructed by BODCO.

The Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 ("Act") designated Malaysia's Shariah Advisory Committee on Islamic finance ("SAC") as the authority for ascertaining Islamic law for the purposes of Islamic financial business.

The High Court in SU HOCK GUAN V AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD [2021] 1 AMR 205 held that the cause of action against an insurer under an indemnity insurance accrues...

In the course of a fraud litigation, it is not uncommon for the plaintiff to seek the banks' assistance to preserve the fraudster's assets in the banks pending trial...

Only last year, it was reported that 51% of Malaysia's workforce experienced work-related stress[1]. Mental health is a crucial topic to be discussed, as it is paramount...