The Dispute Resolution Review: Malaysia

Introduction to the dispute resolution framework

Malaysia gained independence from the British in 1957, after which it formed its own independent legal system. The nation's legal framework comprises of various sources, including common law and statutes.

The country has a dual system encompassing a civil court system and a Syariah court system, the latter of which hears cases involving shariah or Islamic law.

The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it grants law-making powers to, among others, the legislative arm of the government. The federal laws enacted by parliament apply throughout the nation, with state legislative assemblies enacting laws at state level. State legislative assemblies are also given power to enact shariah law, which is enforceable in those respective states.

The Federal Court, known as the Supreme Court prior to 1994, is the highest court in Malaysia, and has jurisdiction in, among others, constitutional matters and the hearing of appeals from the Court of Appeal and the High Court.2

The Court of Appeal was established under the Federal Constitution and has the jurisdiction3 to determine appeals from the High Court on criminal and civil cases.

The High Courts in Malaysia are of coordinate jurisdiction, namely the High Court of Malaya and the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.4 The High Court of Malaya will hear cases within the jurisdiction of Peninsular Malaysia, while the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak will hear cases within the jurisdiction of Sabah and Sarawak only. Both High Court jurisdictions are of equal standing in the hierarchy of the judiciary.

Generally, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear all criminal cases including those involving death penalty, and all civil cases where the claim amount exceeds 1 million ringgit, as well as those involving, inter alia, admiralty issues, bankruptcy and companies' civil disputes under any written law, probate issues, and the appointment and guardianship of infants and other properties.5

Malaysia's subordinate courts comprise the Sessions Court and Magistrates Court. The Sessions Court has jurisdiction over civil disputes including, accident claims, and landlord and tenant claims and other civil disputes valued at up to 1 million ringgit.6 The Sessions Court also hears all criminal disputes except those involving the death penalty.7

The lowest court in the land is the Magistrate's Court, which hears civil claims of less than 1 million ringgit,8 and criminal cases where the offence is punishable by a fine or an offence that carries an imprisonment term of less than 10 years.9

Malaysia also has its own statutory regime in respect of industrial relations matters, namely the Industrial Relations Act 1967.10 There are also several specialist tribunals such as the Competition Commission, which protects and ensures free and fair competition in Malaysia's commercial market.

In terms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the most common forms of alternative dispute resolution methods in Malaysia are arbitration, adjudication of construction matters and mediation.

The year in review

2020 saw the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, which caused disruptions to industries and societies alike. In response to the outbreak and the subsequent movement lockdowns imposed to curb the spread of the virus, the parliament enacted the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020, herein referred to as the Covid-19 Act.

The Act came into force on 23 October 2020. However, it had a retrospective effect beginning from 18 March 2020, which was the date of the country's first lockdown, which was implemented under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988. Known as the Movement Control Order, the country would from that point enter and exit movement lockdowns throughout 2020 and, subsequently, 2021.

The provisions of the Covid-19 Act were designed to provide contractual relief to business owners and individuals affected by the movement lockdowns. The industries included in this locus of contractual relief were construction contracts, contracts for professional services and tourism contracts, among others.11 Initially, Part II of the Act was intended to apply until 31 December 2020; however, the limitation period has since been extended several times, with the latest extension lasting until 22 October 2022.

One of the key provisions of the Covid-19 Act is found in Section 7, which allows relief for parties who are unable to perform their part of a contract due to the effects of the imposed movement lockdowns disallowing parties to exercise their rights under the same contract.

Besides that, a new addition to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC Act) now makes companies automatically liable for acts of bribery by their associated persons, which covers employees, directors and others, as of 1 June 2020. This is a milestone in the development of corporate liability in Malaysia.

Recent decisions

In Masenang Sdn Bhd v. Sabanilam Enterprise Sdn Bhd,12 the Federal Court ruled that the court at the seat of arbitration is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate or supervise the arbitral proceedings out of the agreement between the parties in a domestic arbitration, much like an international arbitration.

In Catajaya Sdn Bhd v. Shoppoint Sdn Bhd,13 guidance was given by the Federal Court on the interpretation of termination clauses under contracts governed by Malaysian law. In a nutshell, the takeaway is that termination clauses in a contract ought to be construed strictly in Malaysia and the clear intent and meaning of the parties must be given effect to.

The Federal Court in the case of Ong Leong Chiou & Anor v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd14 has taken the opportunity to clarify the doctrine of lifting or piercing of the corporate veil by referring to the English law principles propounded in the UK Supreme Court case of Prest v. Prest and others,15 and acknowledged that fraud in itself warrants the allocation of liability to the perpetrators of the fraud, independently of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.

The Federal Court in the case of Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v. Edwin Cassian A/L Nagappan @ Marie16 unanimously decided that where there is a joint contract between parties, the liability of a judgment falls on both parties equally, unless otherwise stated in the contract. This means that all parties to the contract are fully and equally liable to pay the whole amount of the judgment debt. This marked the first time the Federal Court addressed the issue of liability between two or more judgment debtors and was a significant development in the area of joint and several liability.

Court procedure

i Overview of court procedure

The superior courts in Malaysia's civil court system are governed by the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 while its subordinate courts are governed by the Subordinate Courts Act 1948.

In 2020, there were amendments to the Rules of Court 2012, which govern proceedings in the High Court, Magistrate's Court and Sessions Court. Some of the notable changes are as follows:

  1. electronic communication is now allowed as a mode of service of documents (Order 10, Rule 1(1));
  2. electronic transmission of court documents will be counted as personal service (Order 63A, Rule 17);
  3. virtual court hearings are allowed through remote communication technology (Order 33A);
  4. there is a further emphasis on mediation during pre-trial case management (Order 34, Rule 2 (1A); and
  5. pre-trial case managements and trials may be adjourned up to a maximum of three times in the interests of justice and expediency (Order 34, Rules 5 and 3).

ii Procedures and time frames

In Malaysia, a civil claim is commenced via an originating summons or a writ,17 which has a validity of six months from the date of its issuance. A sealed writ must be served with either a statement of claim or a concise statement of the nature of the claim made or the remedy sought after in the action. The writ of summons may be served upon the defendant via personal service or registered post or, pursuant to the latest amendments to the Rules of Court, via electronic communication.18 Generally, a defendant who has been served a writ and statement of claim has 14 days to enter an appearance to defend the claim, and to file a statement of defence and counterclaim, after which the plaintiff has 14 days to serve a reply and a reply to defence and counterclaim. If the defendant fails to enter an appearance within the time frame, a judgment in default may be entered against the defendant.19

A plaintiff may obtain a judgment without trial by applying for summary judgment. Summary judgment is awarded when the defendant has no defence, and can only be applied for after the plaintiff has served the statement of claim and after the defendant has entered an appearance.20 The test for an award of summary judgment will be whether the defendant can prove that there is any triable issue that must be considered in a full trial.

A party may apply to strike out the whole or part of the plaintiff's writ or statement of claim if it does not establish a reasonable cause of action; it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; it may prejudice a fair trial; or if it is an abuse of the court's process.21

In the Rules of pre-trial case management, parties must appear before the court so that it may direct the parties on future actions that will aid in the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the case.22 Failure of any parties to attend the pre-trial case management may result in the dismissal or striking out of the action by the court.23

Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012 governs pre-trial case management, wherein the court may direct the parties to a dispute on a number of issues, including the possibility of a settlement of the dispute via alternate resolution methods such as mediation. The court may also direct parties on time frames within which to file their respective bundles of pleadings and bundles of documents that will be relied on in court, and to evaluate the relevancy of the list of witnesses that parties are intending to call on. Parties may also be instructed on the period within which to file the statement of agreed facts, referring to facts that are not disputed by all parties, and when to file a statement of issues to be tried, which is a statement of all of the main issues between the parties.

Sections 50 and 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 grant the court the power to grant an interim injunction at its discretion. Interim injunctions are granted until the main action is resolved or until a further order by the court. An application to grant an interim injunction may be made by any party at any time before or after the trial of the cause or matter.24

iii Class actions

A class action is generally known as representative action in Malaysia.25 Representative proceedings are held when numerous persons have similar interests in contemplated Court proceedings.

There is a three-part test to be satisfied when a representative action comes before the courts, as laid down in Vellasamy Pennusamy & Ors v. Gurbachan Singh Bagawan Singh & Ors,26 namely:

  1. there must first be numerous persons that have a common interest arising out of a particular action;
  2. the plaintiff and those it represents must have a common grievance or a common complaint; and
  3. the relief sought must be beneficial to all the plaintiff parties.

iv Representation in proceedings

It is not mandatory in Malaysia for a private individual to engage legal representation, and a person may represent him or herself in court proceedings.

However, companies are not allowed to represent themselves and must engage a lawyer in legal proceedings.27

v Service out of the jurisdiction

For defendants outside Malaysia, an application must be made to the court for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction.28 The application must be supported by an affidavit stating that the applicant has a good cause of action and showing in what place or country the defendant may be found.29 The service of writ or originating summons will depend on if there is a civil procedure convention in the other country. If there is a convention, service may be effected through the judicial authorities of that country or through a Malaysian consular authority, or, alternatively, through the applicant itself or its agent.30

vi Enforcement of foreign judgments

In Malaysia, enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA). The enforcement of foreign judgments is based on the principle of international reciprocity, which states that a foreign judgment may only be registered in Malaysia if it is a reciprocating country, as per the list of countries in REJA. The foreign judgment creditor must begin an originating summons supported by an affidavit.31

Currently, the list of reciprocating countries under REJA are the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam.

Section 3(3) of REJA32 states the criteria to be fulfilled to register a foreign judgment successfully are the following:

  1. the judgment must be final;
  2. the judgment must include a payable sum (excluding taxes, fines or penalties); and
  3. the judgment must be from a reciprocating country as stated in REJA.

The registration process is governed under Section 4 of REJA,33 and registration is effectively mandatory once the Section 3(3) conditions have been met. Once the applicant can prove the three criteria, the judgment must be registered.

Under Section 4(1), the applicant must prove that:

  1. the foreign judgment was given within six years by the original court;
  2. has not been satisfied in full by a judgment debtor; and
  3. is able to be enforced or executed in the original court.

If the foreign judgment registration is granted, the judgment debtor may apply under Section 5 of REJA to set aside the registration.

vii Assistance to foreign courts

Service of foreign proceedings on a party in Malaysia may be done through a letter of request from a consul or another authority of that country.34 A foreign party may also seek the assistance of Malaysian courts to take evidence from a local witness for use in foreign proceedings.35

Examination of witnesses can be conducted before any fit and proper person nominated by the person applying for the order or by a registrar of a Malaysian court.36 The deposition of the examination of the witness will be sent to the registrar, who will issue a certificate to be sealed by the High Court for use outside the jurisdiction.37 The registrar will then send the certificate to the authorised person for use in the foreign court.

viii Access to court files

In Malaysia, court proceedings are generally conducted in open court and the public are allowed to attend court hearings. Trials, judicial review applications and appellate court hearings fall under open court proceedings. Court documents are also made public, and a member of the public may search for pleadings and cause papers by searching for them online using the specific case number.

However, there are cases where the public are not allowed to hear proceedings or to view or read court documents where it is in the interest of justice, to protect public safety, or for other confidentiality or secrecy reasons.

ix Litigation funding

Third-party funding is not allowed in Malaysia; clients are required to pay their own legal costs. Thus far, there is no legislation allowing for champertous agreements.

Legal practice

i Conflicts of interest and Chinese walls

In Malaysia, there is no division of solicitors and barristers as in the United Kingdom (i.e., a fused profession). Once admitted, a legal practitioner can practise as both advocate and solicitor. Advocates and solicitors in Malaysia are governed by, among other things, the Malaysian Legal Profession Act 1976, Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1976 (Etiquette Rules), Solicitors' Remuneration Order 2005 and Bar Council rulings.

As in other jurisdictions, the relationship between an advocate and solicitor and his or her client is a fiduciary one whereby, generally, he or she is expected to act in the best interest of his or her client and in good faith. Thus, the duty of an advocate and solicitor not to act from a position of a conflict of interest is obvious. In this respect, the relevant rules under the Etiquette Rules include:

  1. Rule 5: no advocate and solicitor should accept a brief if this makes it difficult to maintain professional independence;
  2. Rule 16: advocates and solicitors are to uphold the interests of their clients and the justice and dignity of the profession;
  3. Rule 25: advocates and solicitors are to disclose all circumstances to their clients; and
  4. Rule 35: advocates and solicitors are not to abuse confidence reposed in them by their clients.

In Ng Siew Lan v. John Lee Tsun Vui & Anor,38 the Federal Court held that:

The duty of a solicitor not to act in a position of conflict of interest is obvious. Where he is placed in that position, his basic duties include: (i) to inform his client that he acts as a common solicitor for the parties in the transaction and the risk related thereto; and (ii) to advise the client to engage another solicitor to act for him in the transaction to avoid any conflict of interest between the parties. . .

It is also pertinent to note that advocates and solicitors in Malaysia have a double loyalty duty: to their clients and to the law. Thus, while acting in the best interests of a client, advocates and solicitors should not and cannot undermine the law because advocates and solicitors are officers of the court.

ii Money laundering, proceeds of crime and funds related to terrorism

The Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA), which came into force on 15 January 2002, is the primary legislation aimed at curbing money laundering and terrorism financing activities in Malaysia. Legal practitioners in Malaysia are among the reporting institutions that are obliged to promptly report any suspicious transactions encountered to Bank Negara, the central bank of Malaysia.39 Failure to report suspicious transactions may result in a fine or a term of imprisonment, or both. In this regard, specific guidelines and checklists have been issued by the Malaysian Bar Council to facilitate due compliance with the AMLA.

iii Data protection

The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) came into force on 15 November 2013, with subsidiary legislation being enacted and guidelines and codes being issued from time to time.

The PDPA applies to any person who processes, and has control over or authorises, the processing of any personal data in respect of commercial transactions.40 In this regard, processing has a wide definition under the PDPA, including collecting, recording, or holding or storing of personal data.41 However, the PDPA does not apply to personal data processed outside Malaysia unless that personal data is intended to be further processed in Malaysia.42 Specifically, Section 2 of the PDPA provides that the Act applies to a person in respect of personal data if:

  1. the person is established in Malaysia and the personal data is processed, whether or not in the context of that establishment, by that person or any other person employed or engaged by that establishment; or
  2. the person is not established in Malaysia, but uses equipment in Malaysia for processing the personal data otherwise than for the purposes of transit through Malaysia.

Documents and the protection of privilege

i Privilege

Broadly, there are two types of legal privilege in Malaysia: legal advice privilege and litigation privilege.

Legal advice privilege

Legal advice privilege is codified in Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950, which prohibits the disclosure of any communication, contents or condition of any document and advice disclosed, made known to or given by an advocate or solicitor in the course of and for the purpose of his or her employment. However, Section 126 does not operate to protect communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose or when the advocate or solicitor becomes aware of a crime or fraud committed after commencement of his or her employment. It is also noteworthy that legal advice privilege does not extend to communications between in-house counsel and their employer.43

Litigation privilege

Litigation privilege applies to communications for the purpose of anticipated court proceedings. This extends the protection to cover communications with third parties. To establish litigation privilege, one would have to look at whether litigation was pending or apprehended; and whether litigation was the dominant purpose for which the document was prepared.

ii Production of documents

Parties to court proceedings are required to produce documents within their control and which they will rely upon. This is usually directed by the court during pre-trial case management whereby parties shall exchange documents and agree on the categorisation of the same.

A litigant may also apply, under the Rules of Court 2012, for a discovery order to compel another party to make and serve on him or her a list of documents (which needs to be verified by an affidavit) that are, or have been, in their possession, custody or power. The documents that can be ordered to be discovered include documents that could adversely affect a party's own case or another party's case, or support another party's case.

In addition, a litigant can also apply, under the Rules of Court 2012, for a more specific discovery order requiring the other party to make an affidavit stating whether any document specified or described in the application or any class of document so specified or described is, or has at any time been, in his or her possession, custody or power; and, if not then in his or her possession, custody or power, when he or she parted with it and what has become of it.

Parties must note that the party required to give discovery under any such orders shall remain under a duty to continue to give discovery of all documents falling within the ambit of such order until the proceedings in which the order was made are concluded. Failure to comply with such orders may result in the action being dismissed or the defence being struck out and judgment being entered accordingly.

Alternatives to litigation

i Overview of alternatives to litigation

There are different types of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms available in Malaysia. The most common types are arbitration, adjudication and mediation.

ii Arbitration

A common alternative to litigation is arbitration. There have been three revisions and amendments to the Arbitration Act 2005 since it first came into force in March 2006. The latest amendment, made in May 2018 by the Arbitration (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2018 (ACT A1569), brought the Arbitration Act in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Sections 3 to 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law are closely followed and adopted in Sections 6 to 39 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (with minor variations). Parts III and IV of the Arbitration Act 2005, which contain additional and miscellaneous provisions relating to arbitration proceedings, however, are new sections that are not contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law.

In this regard, set out below are the mandatory legislative provisions under the Arbitration Act 2005, which include the following:

  1. Section 4 provides that 'any dispute which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration under an arbitration agreement may be determined by arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is contrary to public policy or the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of Malaysia'.
  2. Section 20 provides that 'parties shall be treated with equality and each party shall be given a fair and reasonable opportunity of presenting that party's case'.
  3. The Arbitration Act 2005 also provides parties with the freedom of choice to conduct the arbitration proceedings. For example:
    • Section 12(1) provides parties with the freedom to determine the number of arbitrators;
    • Section 13(2) provides parties with the freedom to agree on a procedure for the appointment of the arbitrators; and
    • Section 21(1) provides parties with the freedom to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the arbitration proceedings.
  4. Section 10(1) provides that 'a court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, where a party makes an application before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed'.

Arbitration is a private method of dispute resolution. Thus, parties have more flexibility in the rules and procedures and confidentiality of proceedings. The Arbitration Act 2005 is the law governing arbitration in Malaysia. Since 28 February 2018, the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) is the default appointing body.

There is no appeal against an award made in Malaysia under the Arbitration Act 2005. However, parties may file an application to the High Court to set aside the award within 90 days of receipt of the award. However, the grounds for setting aside such an award are limited to fraud, or breach of the rules of natural justice, or where the award is contrary to public policy of Malaysia.

iii Adjudication

The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) was gazetted on 22 June 2012 and came into force on 15 April 2014. CIPAA was passed to 'facilitate regular and timely payment, to provide a mechanism for speedy dispute resolution through adjudication, to provide remedies for the recovery of payment in the construction industry and to provide for connected and incidental matters'. The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Regulations 2014 and the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication (Exemption) Order 2014 were both also implemented on 15 April 2014 to complement CIPAA. CIPAA has a wide application in disputes arising from construction contracts in respect of work done and services rendered.

Adjudication proceedings under CIPAA will be presided over by a neutral and impartial adjudicator agreed by parties or appointed by the AIAC. The adjudicator usually has a highly experienced background in the construction law and industry fields relevant to the dispute. The decision of the adjudicator will be immediately binding on the parties.

Like arbitration, the decision of the adjudicator is binding. The aggrieving party may apply to the High Court for a stay of an adjudication decision. However, the grounds for setting aside such a decision are limited to fraud or bribery, denial of natural justice or impartiality, or that an adjudicator has acted in excess of his or her jurisdiction.

iv Mediation

Mediation is an integral part of the legal system in Malaysia. The Mediation Act 2012 was passed to promote and encourage mediation as a method of ADR by providing for the process of mediation, facilitating parties to settle disputes in a fair, speedy and cost-effective manner, and to provide for related matters.

In most cases, the courts encourage parties to consider mediation at the earliest possible stage before proceeding to trial. Mediation is a voluntary process provided for free at the courts whereby court officers are usually assigned to facilitate discussions between the parties.

Outlook and conclusions

Malaysia, like the rest of the world, has weathered the effects of the pandemic over the past year.

In adapting to the new normal, the Rules of Court 2012 have been updated to, among others, allow for court proceedings to be conducted virtually. Likewise, arbitral institutions such as the AIAC have responded swiftly to the pandemic, and measures have been taken to ensure the disposal of matters in a timely and efficient manner. These include:

  1. the introduction of the AIAC's Protocol on Virtual Arbitration Proceedings and the Protocol on Virtual Mediation Proceedings to facilitate the conduct of virtual hearings for both arbitration and mediation at the AIAC; and
  2. the launch of the AIAC's draft Arbitration Rules for public comments on 20 June 2021, which seek to introduce significant amendments to the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2018 to reflect contemporary standards and practices in international arbitration.

Recently, the AIAC has also partnered with a leader in cloud-based collaboration solutions for the legal sector to offer a comprehensive range of ADR hearing services to ensure the smooth conduct of proceedings using modern technology solutions.

Footnotes

1 Christopher Arun is a partner and Nur Izzati Rosli, Sylvie Tan Sze Ni and Long Jie Ren are associates at Ariff Rozhan & Co.

2 Article 121 (2), the Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957.

3 Article 121 (1B), the Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957.

4 Article 121 (1), The Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957.

5 Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

6 Section 65, Subordinate Courts Act 1948.

7 Section 63, Subordinate Courts Act 1948.

8 Section 90, Subordinate Courts Act 1948.

9 Section 85, Subordinate Courts Act 1948.

10 Section 21, Industrial Relations Act 1967.

11 Schedule, Section 7, Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020.

12 [2021] MLJU 1656.

13 [2020] MLJU 2333.

14 [2021] 4 CLJ 82.

15 [2013] 4 All ER 673.

16 [2021] 7 CLJ 823.

17 Rules of Court 2012, Order 5, Rule 1.

18 Order 62 Rule 6(1)(cc) of the Rules of Court 2012.

19 Order 13 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012.

20 Rules of Court 2012, Order 14, Rule 1.

21 Rules of Court 2012, Order 18, Rule 19.

22 Rules of Court 2012, Order 34, Rule 1.

23 Rules of Court 2012, Order 34, Rule 6.

24 Rules of Court 2012, Order 29, Rule 1.

25 Rules of Court 2012, Order 15, Rule 12.

26 [2012] 2 CLJ 712 (CA).

27 Rules of Court 2012, Order 5, Rule 6.

28 Rules of Court 2012, Order 11.

29 Rules of Court 2012, Order 11, Rule 4.

30 Rules of Court 2012, Order 11, Rule 6.

31 Rules of Court 2012, Order 67, Rule 2.

32 Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, Section 3(3).

33 Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, Section 4.

34 Rules of Court 2012, Order 65, Rule 2.

35 Rules of Court 2012, Order 66.

36 Rules of Court 2012, Order 66, Rule 4.

37 Rules of Court 2012, Order 66, Rule 5.

38 [2017] 2 MLJ 167.

39 AMLA, Sections 4 and 14.

40 PDPA, Section 2(1)

41 PDPA, Section 4

42 PDPA, Section 3(2)

43 Refer to Toralf Mueller v. Alcim Holding Sdn Bhd [2015] MLJU 779.

The Law Reviews content