S.S. Tieh's Malaysian Law Updates

In Pendakwa Raya v Pang Kar Foong [2026] 4 MLRA 23 , the Court of Appeal observed as follows:   “[30] Berhubung sama ada YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf apabila mempertimbangkan pembelaan perbuatan seseorang yang tidak sempurna akal di bawah s 84 Kanun Keseksaan di akhir kes pendakwaan sedangkan undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa pertimbangan sedemikian hanya boleh dilakukan di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah ini kini terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Rozani Yahaya [2025] 1 MLRA 203 yang telah mengakas keputusan Mahkamah ini. Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam alasannya telah dengan jelas memutuskan sebagaimana berikut :   “[67] Secondly, after having found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case as charged, it is incumbent for the learned trial Judge to call for the accused to enter his defence. It is premature for the learned trial to acquit the accused at the end of the prosecution’s case based solely on medical ev...

The answer is “No”.   The Court of Appeal in Duta Nilai Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Ismail Othman & Ors [2026] 4 MLRA 1 held that:   “[59] The Appellant’s case rests on the proposition that an unopposed expert’s opinion must be accepted. With respect, that is not an absolute rule: a trial judge may reject or limit the weight of expert evidence if the expert’s scope, methodology, assumptions or concessions undermine reliability .   [60] It is well settled that expert evidence is advisory in nature and does not bind the Court. Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 permits expert opinion to assist the court in matters requiring specialised knowledge, but the responsibility for assessing such evidence and arriving at findings of fact remains with the Court . The Court of Appeal in Kulasingam Samuel v. Rasammah JV Thambipillai [1996] 2 MLRA 97 observed that “expert witnesses only give opinion evidence, but the court is free to draw its own conclusions.” ...   ...

Maintenance fees and contribution to the sinking fund which have remained unpaid during a developer’s management period, shall vest in the joint management body on the date of the expiry of the said developer’s management period.   Section 16(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 provides that:   “ (2) Any right, power or remedy granted to the developer under this Part in respect of the Charges, contribution to the sinking fund, and any other assets of the maintenance account and the sinking fund account, shall vest in the joint management body on the date of the expiry of the developer’s management period, and the joint management body shall have the same right, power or remedy as if it had at all times been a right, power or remedy of the joint management body, including those rights in respect of any legal proceedings or applications to any authority by the developer pending immediately before the expiry of the developer’s management period.”