Does compulsory motor insurance protect every accident victim? [Part-1/2: Employee exception]
Compulsory motor insurance has a quiet exception — and injured employees often fall through it. Should we change the law?
Read MoreCompulsory motor insurance has a quiet exception — and injured employees often fall through it. Should we change the law?
Read MoreTwo friends bin a beer and a coffee together. So why must Selangor's rubbish now declare its faith?
Read MoreIn recent years I have appeared in several trial courts: Kuala Lumpur, Shah Alam, Kota Bharu, Kuala Terengganu, and Johore Bharu. My work requires me to appear regularly before the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. I am happy to report that Malaysian judges are courteous, professional–and to use an old English word, "proper". It was not always this way: several times in my career, I have come across ...
Read MoreShe cannot drive. She did not buy the tyres. Yet an insurer says she should pay her father's ninety per cent. The law, and four jurisdictions, say otherwise.
Read MoreA three-year-old survives a fatal crash. Four doctrines collide. Some lawyers might confuse them. Here is how not to.
Read MoreAre we asking the right questions about legal training? Malaysia wants to retire the CLP — but the exam, and the training, were never the real danger. It is what we fail to teach.
Read MoreWho says that a third party victim of an accident, "cannot claim for property damage"? Would the Constitution treat personal injury as different from damage to a victim's property just because a statute ignores constitutional rights?
Read MoreHe crippled his wife, then nursed her for years — now his insurer calls that kindness a reason not to pay.
Read MoreThe victim was the insured’s husband, riding to a work audit in his wife’s car. The insurer said the policy did not cover him, sat out the trial’s coverage fight, lost it, and then demanded the victim sue all over again. The Federal Court declined to oblige.
Read MoreThe insurer won a declaration against its own insured, then waved it at the crash victim like a writ of execution. Appeal No. 7 of Sa’Amran asked the question the order itself could not answer: whom does a section 96(3) declaration actually bind?
Read More