Malaysia | Newsletter - December 2021

To read the articles below, please click here.

An examination of the case of Telekom Research and Development Sdn Bhd v Ahmad Farid Bin Abdul Rahman by the Court of Appeal

The Industrial Court had ruled that the company, Telekom Research and Development Sdn Bhd (“Telekom”), had proven the misconduct against a former employee, the claimant Ahmad Farid Bin Abdul Rahman (“Ahmad”), and that the dismissal was justified. 

However, the High Court quashed the decision of the Industrial Court when it accepted Ahmad’s contention that he had submitted the claim to Telekom by an “innocent mistake”. 

Telekom appealed against the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and affirmed the Industrial Court’s decision. Recently, the Federal Court dismissed Ahmad’s application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.

In this article, Wong Kian Jun looks at a recent case relating to ground of misconduct for dismissal.

Perdana Petroleum Bhd (formerly known as Petra Perdana Bhd) v Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra: Indemnity for Directors in the Company’s Constitution

Could the provisions of a company’s constitution bind third parties such as the company’s directors without the incorporation of such provisions in the terms of employment of its directors? 

The recent Court of Appeal decision of Perdana Petroleum Bhd (formerly known as Petra Perdana Bhd) v Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra¹  has provided further clarity on the issue pertaining to whether a company’s constitution alone can give rise to an indemnity from a company in favour of its directors or former directors.

A case note by Cheong Jian Lock.

The High Court rejects a challenge against applying a vaccination programme for teenagers

In September 2021, Malaysia implemented the National Covid-19 Immunisation Programme which aims to vaccinate 3.2 million teenagers aged 12 to 17 (“Program”)¹. 

However, vaccine hesitancy has been an issue as illustrated in the recent case of Clarence Ng Chii Wei, where 18 teenagers (“Applicants”) filed judicial review proceedings in the Penang High Court against the Minister of Health (“Minister”), Director General of Health (“DG”), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation and the Government of Malaysia (collectively, “Respondents”). 

In issue was the DG’s circular dated 12 August 2021 (“Circular”) directing the implementation of the Program, and the Minister’s Guideline dated 13 August 2021 naming Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) (“Comirnaty”) as the vaccine of choice for the Program (collectively, “Decision”). 

A case note by Wong Jia Jing.

Budget 2022 — Stamp Duty Exemption for Loan/Financing Agreements

On 29 October 2021, the Finance Minister, Tengkul Zafrul Aziz, announced Malaysia's Budget 2022 (“Budget”) in Parliament, which builds upon three key pillars — strengthening recovery, building resilience and driving reforms. In line with this, various initiatives and measures have been introduced in the Budget, one of them being stamp duty exemption. 

This article will be looking at stamp duty exemption that is related to loan or financing agreements, that is, the extension of stamp duty exemption for rescheduling and restructuring transaction documents and the stamp duty exemption on loan or financing agreements for peer-to-peer (“P2P”) financing.

In this article, Tang Jia Yi discusses the stamp duty exemption related to loan or financing agreements introduced in Budget 2022.

Qi Sheng Sdn Bhd v Foong Yit Meng [2021] MLJU 269

The second plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the “Goco Comfort” and “Goco” trademarks under registration nos. 96003868 and 08008365 and the applicant for pending trademark application no. 2018015831, whilst the first and third plaintiffs were authorised by the second plaintiff to use the said Goco Comfort and Goco trademarks. The plaintiffs (“Qi Sheng”) claimed that the Goco Comfort and Goco trademarks are well-known trademarks in the footwear industry.

The first defendant, who was the director of the second defendant, was the registered proprietor of the “CONVERT” trademarks under registration nos. 05000826 and 2016007852. The defendants (“Foong Yit Meng”) also had registrations for the said mark in other classes in Malaysia as well as in Singapore and the Philippines.

In this article, Raghuram Supramanium explores the decision of the High Court in the above case which discusses the requirements of an “aggrieved person” under the new Trademarks Act 2019.

Tax Highlights of Malaysia’s Budget 2022

On 6 November 2021, the Malaysian Minister of Finance, YB Senator Tengku Datuk Seri Utama Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz, unveiled the Malaysian Budget 2022 (“the Budget”) themed “Keluarga Malaysia, Makmur Sejahtera” (‘A Prosperous Malaysian Family’). The Budget’s allocation of RM 322.1 billion is the largest on record for the country¹.

In this article, Jeevitha Thurai Rathnam sets out some key highlights from Malaysia’s 2022 Budget and the Finance Bill 2021.

To read the articles below, please click here.