[EMPLOYMENT] Bully-Proofing the Workplace: Employer Duties and Legal Risks
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).
[INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION] REJA 1958 and AA 2005: Which Route for the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
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] Gig Workers Bill 2025 – A Monumental Shift
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] Court Upholds Covid-19 Entry Policy
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).
[ESG] Green Electricity That’s Easy to GET
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).
[TAX, CUSTOMS & TRADE] High Court Rules Taxpayers Entitled to Refunds with Interest for Taxes Paid Under Unconstitutional Section 4C of the ITA: Federal Court’s Decision in Wiramuda Applies Retrospectively
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).
[DISPUTE RESOLUTION] Imposition of Penalty by a Regulator Can Only Be Challenged by Judicial Review, Not Collaterally in a Recovery Action
In Adnan Bin Yaakob v Securities Commission Malaysia, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by Adnan bin Yaakob against the decision of the High Court (“HC”). The HC had affirmed the summary judgment entered by the Magistrates’ Court against the Appellant for the sum of RM84,000.00, being the penalty imposed by the Securities Commission Malaysia pursuant to Section 354(1)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”), read together with Sections 246(1)(b) and 367(1) of the CMSA.
This case serves as a reminder that a person aggrieved by a decision made by a public authority in imposing a penalty in the exercise of its statutory powers must act promptly in challenging the penalty by way of judicial review, within the time limit stipulated under Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012. Once the time limit for judicial review lapses, the door closes. The Court will not permit a collateral attack on the penalty in a subsequent recovery action.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Chia Oh Sheng (cos@lh-ag.com) or Associate Lim Jun Xian (ljx@lh-ag.com).
[DISPUTE RESOLUTION] When Is It Lawful to Charge Differently? Recent Judicial Trends on a Management Corporation’s Power
This alert examines recent Court of Appeal decisions that clarify the scope of a Management Corporation’s power under the Strata Management Act 2013 to impose different rates of maintenance charges based on parcel use.
The courts have affirmed that differential charges are permissible where parcels serve “substantially different purposes” (e.g., Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor). However, they have also drawn clear limits – rulings in Yong Kein Sin & Anor v Perbadanan Pengurusan Springtide Residences & other appeals and Perbadanan Pengurusan PD1 v SCP Assets Sdn Bhd emphasise that differences in usage or operational costs alone, within the same category (e.g., apartments vs. villas), do not justify varying rates.
For any inquiries, please contact Associate, Man Weng Keat (mwk@lh-ag.com), or his team Partner, Ho Ai Ting (hat@lh-ag.com).
[EMPLOYMENT] The Test is Contract, Not Convenience: When Transfer Denials Do Not Breach the Contract
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).
[DISPUTE RESOLUTION] A Step Forward: Cross-Border Insolvency Bill 2025
Malaysia has taken a significant step toward aligning its insolvency laws with global best practices with the tabling of the much-anticipated Cross-Border Insolvency Bill 2025 on 28 July 2025.
Modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, the Bill introduces a structured framework for recognising foreign insolvency proceedings, facilitating judicial cooperation, and improving legal certainty for creditors and businesses operating internationally. This move positions Malaysia as a more attractive and globally connected jurisdiction for cross-border commerce and restructuring.
This article outlines the key provisions of the Bill and its practical implications.
If you have any queries, please contact Partners, Kumar Kanagasingam (kk@lh-ag.com), Mong Chung Seng (mcs@lh-ag.com), and Wong Han Wey (whw@lh-ag.com), or Senior Associate Medha Ong Ann Ting (oat@lh-ag.com).