How should Professional Bodies punish multiple disciplinary offences? The principle of ‘Totality’

When a professional is found guilty of multiple misconducts, should a disciplinary body impose separate punishments for each offence, and then add them up, or just impose a single punishment for all? What if the offences occurred during the same incident, or at different times? How should the appropriate punishment be decided?

Read More

What is the difference between ‘Questions of Law’, ‘Questions of Fact’ and ‘Mixed’ questions?

Every courtroom dispute hinges on a deceptively simple question: "What exactly are we arguing about?" Yet this fundamental inquiry—whether we are debating what the law says, what actually happened, or how proven facts fit legal standards—can determine the fate of both victims and defendants. The distinction isn't merely academic; it shapes everything from appeal strategies to awards for compensation.

Read More

CJ’s Malta speech defines Democracy: a Government’s legitimacy depends on an Independent Judiciary

Can a judge speak truth about justice without facing negative consequences? Chief Justice Tengku Maimun’s Malta Speech exposed the deepest fractures. It revealed a constitutional cross-road by asking this question: "Will Malaysians choose constitutional rule, or arbitrary power?" What is your answer? It matters.

Read More

Has the RTA made the ‘insurable interest defence’ and the ‘recovery action,’ redundant?

Should innocent accident victims be forced into costly legal battles twice—once against the driver and again, [by what has come to be known as a ‘Recover Action’] against the insurer? How did Malaysia’s Federal Court in the 2022 Sa' Amran decision demolish 70 years of established insurance practice? How did it revolutionise third-party victim compensation?

Read More

Has the Federal Court ended the ‘Recovery Action’ and the ‘insurable interest defence’ in Malaysian Motor Insurance Law?

Should innocent accident victims be forced into costly legal battles twice—once against the driver and again, [by what has come to be known as a ‘Recovery Action’] against the insurer? How did Malaysia’s Federal Court in the 2022 Saamran decision demolish 70 years of established insurance practice? How did it revolutionise third-party victim compensation?

Read More

Nine judges, two years, one crisis: Malaysia’s path between Judicial collapse and Constitutional Renewal

Malaysia's judiciary teeters on the brink. An institutional crisis looms—potentially as devastating as 1988's judicial catastrophe—threatening constitutional governance and the rule of law itself. Nine Federal Court judges departing within two years represents far more than administrative upheaval: it's a catastrophic haemorrhaging of judicial wisdom, precisely when institutional memory matters most. We should never have come to this pass. Left unchecked, this depletion spells disaster for the nation. Which path will Malaysia ...

Read More

The Promise and the Perils of Artificial Intelligence in Court Work

Artificial Intelligence flows through the hallowed halls of justice as the morning mist—pervasive, transformative, and unstoppable. Courts and lawyers alike should embrace AI — with wisdom, not fear. Frost reminds us, “The best way out is always through.” No machine can ever match the human soul's eternal quest for justice. That fire burns beyond all programming.

Read More

The Jurisprudential Revolution: How the Ten Principles in Mohamed Fayadh transformed sec.96(2)(a) RTA 1987

For the first time in 90 years, we are asking the right questions in the right order, especially in personal injury cases. Under s.96(2)(a) RTA 1987, must accident victims themselves notify insurers before commencing proceedings, or does this duty lie elsewhere? This article asks 10 more such questions.

Read More