[ESG] The Price of Air: How Malaysia is Putting a Market on Emissions
The Energy Commission recently released updated Guidelines in relation to Green Electricity Tariff (GET). GET empowers individuals, businesses, and institutions to take meaningful steps towards decarbonization, without needing to invest in on-site renewable systems.
If you have any queries, please contact ESG & Sustainability Practice Partner, Joyce Ong Kar Yee (oky@lh-ag.com).
[DISPUTE RESOLUTION] Derivative Action: Does Loss of Standing by the Complainant Defeat the Proceedings?
Transfer orders by the company or a rejection of a transfer request by the company do not automatically constitute constructive dismissal (“CD”). In this case, the High Court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court that there was no CD taking into account the employee’s history of accepting transfers and the tone of the employee’s resignation letter where he expressed gratitude to the company. The High Court held that there was no evidence of a breach of any express or implied term of the employment contract.
This alert discusses the key takeaways from the decision.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Amardeep Singh Toor (ast@lh-ag.com) or Associate Roseveen Kaur Tyndall (rkt@lh-ag.com).
[TAX, CUSTOMS & TRADE] Beyond the Corporate Veil: Court of Appeal Recognises Substance Over Form in Claiming Tax Benefit
On 29 July 2025, the Kuala Lumpur High Court (“KLHC”) ruled in favour of two taxpayers seeking refunds with interest for taxes paid under Section 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA”) – a provision previously declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court (“FC”) in Wiramuda.
The KLHC confirmed that:
The Wiramuda decision applies retrospectively.
The Director General of Inland Revenue (“DGIR”) is bound to apply the FC’s ruling.
Section 111 of the ITA does not bar restitution for taxes collected under an invalid law.
Refunds are to be paid with 5% interest, calculated from the date the judicial review applications were filed.
This is a judgment of interest – not just to affected taxpayers, but to all those navigating the legal boundaries of tax collection and constitutional compliance. Notably, the Shah Alam High Court has recently ruled in favour of the DGIR in a similar matter. Both decisions are now under appeal, and further clarity is expected from the Court of Appeal in due course.
The taxpayers were successfully represented by Consultant Dato’ Nitin Nadkarni, Partner Chris Toh Pei Roo, and Associate Soon Jia Ying from Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill’s Tax, Trade & Customs Practice.
If you have any queries regarding tax assessments raised by the DGIR, please contact the team, Partner Chris Toh Pei Roo (tpr@lh-ag.com) or Associate Soon Jia Ying (jys@lh-ag.com).
[TMT] TECH Alert: Protecting Children in the Age of Invisible Frontiers: Age Verification and Child Safety under the Online Safety Act 2025
In a significant decision delivered on 6 February 2026, the Federal Court in The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah [2026] MLJU 384 overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from s.233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, reinstating both words as constitutional.
In arriving at its decision, the Federal Court provided comprehensive guidance on the proper interpretation and application of s.233(1)(a) CMA — a primary legislative tool governing online conduct.
Our article distils the key takeaways from this judgment, including:
✅ The constitutional status of freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution — and its inherent limits
✅ That s.233(1)(a) CMA complements, rather than restricts, the right to free expression
✅ The two central elements established by the Federal Court for determining when the offence is made out — and the critical role of intent
Read the full article by clicking the ‘Read more’ button below 👇
If you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact G. Vijay Kumar, Partner at vkg@lh-ag.com or Harvey Ng, Senior Associate at nyx@lh-ag.com.
[EMPLOYMENT] Fulfilling ISO Requirements: Not Merely Administrative
Transfer orders by the company or a rejection of a transfer request by the company do not automatically constitute constructive dismissal (“CD”). In this case, the High Court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court that there was no CD taking into account the employee’s history of accepting transfers and the tone of the employee’s resignation letter where he expressed gratitude to the company. The High Court held that there was no evidence of a breach of any express or implied term of the employment contract.
This alert discusses the key takeaways from the decision.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Amardeep Singh Toor (ast@lh-ag.com) or Associate Roseveen Kaur Tyndall (rkt@lh-ag.com).
[TMT] TECH Alert: The Intent Test: Offensive Online Speech Redefined
In a significant decision delivered on 6 February 2026, the Federal Court in The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah [2026] MLJU 384 overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from s.233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, reinstating both words as constitutional.
In arriving at its decision, the Federal Court provided comprehensive guidance on the proper interpretation and application of s.233(1)(a) CMA — a primary legislative tool governing online conduct.
Our article distils the key takeaways from this judgment, including:
✅ The constitutional status of freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution — and its inherent limits
✅ That s.233(1)(a) CMA complements, rather than restricts, the right to free expression
✅ The two central elements established by the Federal Court for determining when the offence is made out — and the critical role of intent
Read the full article by clicking the ‘Read more’ button below 👇
If you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact G. Vijay Kumar, Partner at vkg@lh-ag.com or Harvey Ng, Senior Associate at nyx@lh-ag.com.
[EMPLOYMENT] Restructuring, Reporting Lines & Managerial Prerogative
Transfer orders by the company or a rejection of a transfer request by the company do not automatically constitute constructive dismissal (“CD”). In this case, the High Court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court that there was no CD taking into account the employee’s history of accepting transfers and the tone of the employee’s resignation letter where he expressed gratitude to the company. The High Court held that there was no evidence of a breach of any express or implied term of the employment contract.
This alert discusses the key takeaways from the decision.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Amardeep Singh Toor (ast@lh-ag.com) or Associate Roseveen Kaur Tyndall (rkt@lh-ag.com).
[EMPLOYMENT] Disputes Settlement Procedures under Collective Agreements
Transfer orders by the company or a rejection of a transfer request by the company do not automatically constitute constructive dismissal (“CD”). In this case, the High Court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court that there was no CD taking into account the employee’s history of accepting transfers and the tone of the employee’s resignation letter where he expressed gratitude to the company. The High Court held that there was no evidence of a breach of any express or implied term of the employment contract.
This alert discusses the key takeaways from the decision.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Amardeep Singh Toor (ast@lh-ag.com) or Associate Roseveen Kaur Tyndall (rkt@lh-ag.com).
[EMPLOYMENT] High Court Reaffirms Employer’s Prerogative on Transfer Orders in Statutory Bodies
Transfer orders by the company or a rejection of a transfer request by the company do not automatically constitute constructive dismissal (“CD”). In this case, the High Court upheld the decision of the Industrial Court that there was no CD taking into account the employee’s history of accepting transfers and the tone of the employee’s resignation letter where he expressed gratitude to the company. The High Court held that there was no evidence of a breach of any express or implied term of the employment contract.
This alert discusses the key takeaways from the decision.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Amardeep Singh Toor (ast@lh-ag.com) or Associate Roseveen Kaur Tyndall (rkt@lh-ag.com).
[EMPLOYMENT] Strict Timeline for Challenging Industrial Court Awards
The Industrial Court reaffirmed that while the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony is not legally binding, it serves as a key benchmark in assessing the fairness of a retrenchment exercise. In this case, the Company’s financial distress, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitated a transition from manufacturing and R&D to supply chain management, leading to the retrenchment of 61 employees, including the Claimants. The court held that the restructuring was bona fide, with genuine redundancy arising from the reorganisation. This decision underscores that non-compliance with the Code, in itself, does not invalidate a legitimate retrenchment exercise.
If you have any queries, please contact Partners, Shariffullah Majeed (sha@lh-ag.com), or Arissa Ahrom (aa@lh-ag.com).