The Johor Bahru High Court has ordered the government, Sultan Aminah Hospital, its director and 4 doctors to pay RM300,000, RM250,000 and RM30,380 in general, aggravated and special damages respectively. (File pic) PETALING JAYA: The High Court in Johor Bahru has upheld an award of over RM580,000 in damages to a woman who sued for medical negligence over complications arising during childbirth at a government hospital in May 2017.The woman, Nirwana Tamba — an Indonesian national married to a Malaysian — suffered serious injuries at the delivery of her newborn daughter, Tabita anak Nelson, who died four days later. Nirwana had filed her suit in the sessions court seven years ago, naming the government, the Sultanah Aminah Hospital, its director and four doctors as defendants. On May 31, 2023, the trial court awarded her RM300,000 in general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, RM250,000 in aggravated damages, and RM30,380 as special damages. The government appealed to the High Court against liability and quantum, while Nirwana cross-appealed for a higher amount of damages. Both parties have now turned to the Court of Appeal. In his judgment, Justice Noor Hisham Ismail acknowledged as trite law that damages serve as compensation, not reward, let alone a punishment. He said that in assessing damages, the court should not be motivated by sympathy but must award fair compensation based on cogent evidence. Relying on legal precedent, Noor Hisham found that the award of RM300,000 for general damages fell within the range awarded in comparable authorities. Although the events were grave, he said increasing the award to reflect the full extent of the tragedy would risk double compensation. The judge said the sum of RM250,000 awarded as aggravated damages had already addressed the defendants’ conduct and the indignity the plaintiff suffered. He said enhancing general damages on the same factual basis would compensate the plaintiff twice for the same elements. Nor Hisham said the trial judge did not fall into error in awarding damages after finding the defendants liable. The facts of the case revealed that Nirwana was admitted in May 2017 for a planned normal delivery of her third child. Within 12 hours of admission, the baby suffered brain damage due to severe oxygen deprivation. Nirvana’s uterus, bladder and vagina were badly torn, and the situation escalated into an emergency Caesarean section. She also suffered a serious injury to her left arm in the operating theatre. The baby passed away four days later. In her statement of claim, Nirwana said she had suffered significant physical injuries and profound psychological trauma due to the event. The trial judge found the government and the treating defendants negligent in both antenatal and labour management. Lawyers R Jayabalan and Christopher Tan appeared for Nirvana, while federal counsel Zahilah Yusof, Suhana Sabil and Nur Najihah Hamidi represented the government. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2026/03/12/court-affirms-rm610000-damages-to-woman-injured-during-childbirth https://www.instagram.com/p/DVxb9kBD4Fa

It is not uncommon for employers to deploy the grounds of ‘poor performance’ as means of dismissal of employee. This, is an abuse of employer’s rights and managerial prerogative. The Industrial Court will intervene and struck down such dismissals. The following general guidelines apply when determining the bona fide of dismissals on grounds of poor performance: 1. Employer must prove that the employee was warned of his poor performance. 2. Employee was accorded sufficient opportunity to improve, and; 3. Despite the above, the employee failed to sufficiently improve his performance. Employers to be mindful that: 1. Poor performance is not misconduct. 2. Prior warnings of poor performance must be given. 3. Employer must undertake rehabilitative measures to assist underperforming employees. 4. If the employee is placed on Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), the PIP must be in good faith, clear, reasonable and complied with closely. 5. Where targets are set for underperforming employees, the target must be reasonable. Unreasonable targets can be struck down as unfair labour practice. 6. Employees must be given sufficient time, guidance and opportunity to improve. See– Ireka Construction Berhad v. Chantiravathan a/l Subramaniam James [1995] 2 ILR 11 – Lee Hsin Ying v. Sleekflow Technologies Sdn Bhd – Award No. 55 of 2026

The new publicity rules for lawyers and law firms at Malaysian Bar takes effect today 1.1.2026 – attached below. So what’s new? Some highlights: 1. Publicity can be via printed or electronic medium, exposure in any public medium, appearances in seminars/conferences, or via any contact with prospective client. 2. Overriding Principles – any publicity should not affect the dignity and standing of the legal profession which includes acting with integrity, acting in the best interest of client, acting in a manner that would uphold trust and confidence in the lawyer and the legal profession. 3. No misleading, deceptive, false, offensive publicity that adversely affects dignity and standing of the profession or calculated to bring the profession into disrepute. This includes material misrepresentation, omits a material fact, information that cannot be verified, likely to create unjust expectation about the results. 4. May claim specialisation but not ‘expert’. The claim for specialisation must be justifiable. 5. The publicity shall not specify the fees charged, no comparison with fees or quality of service by other lawyers, make no reference to cases handled previously in such a way that could result in breach of confidentiality. 6. Can publicise outside Malaysia BUT – in a manner not contrary to the laws of that country, without diminishing public confidence in the legal profession in Malaysia or brings the profession in Malaysia into disrepure. 7. Firms to appoint a person to be held responsible for its publicity initiatives. 8. Essentially, the new rules signals more space for publicity for lawyers and law firms. 9. But it is not open season (yet) – the ‘overriding principles’ must be complied with and the need to respect the standing and dignity of the profession is still there – in deciding the form, content and medium of the publicity, 10. When there’s a breach BC can order alteration or removal of the publicity. So what’s the best way to describe the changes? Perhaps this. Under the old rules, publicity maybe made only in the manner prescribed, everything else cannot. Under the new rules, all contents/forms possible provided the overriding principles are complied with.

A recent case handled by us for protection of the parcel purchasers’ right (via the JMB) to realise the benefits of a free maintenance package promised by developer to purchasers, after the developer had voluntarily wound itself up and its liquidator having entered into a PA with the third party. Essentially the High Court agreed that the facts and circumstances as proven had led to the existence of an implied contract between the JMB and the third party resulting in the third party having stepped into the shoes of the developer and thus bound by the obligations and liabilities of the developer – here, to pay for the Free Maintenance Package sum totalling RM3.6 m as promised to the purchasers.

What a relief. It has lived long enough. The Federal Court in Like Swee Choo & Anor v. Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong – Civil Appeal no. 02(f) -22-07/2024(W) on 2.10.2025 held that Berjaya Times Square is no longer good law. The FC, among others, examined the test for ‘total failure of consideration’ for purposes of sec 40 Contracts Act 1950 and laid out the correct test. In doing so, the Court, took into account academic writings, and articles over the years commenting on the problems with Berjaya decision. The grounds below. Long enough for the Sunday break reading.

Fali S. Nariman — one of India’s most respected jurists, a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, President of the Bar Association of India, and a renowned constitutional lawyer — shares timeless advice for young lawyers in his book Beyond the Courtroom. His insights are a roadmap for those who wish to build a serious career in litigation. A point-by-point summary follows: 1. Be Regular in Court 2. Attend Court Even When You Have No Work 3. Be Prepared. Always Be Prepared. 4. Know Your Judge 5. Develop Watchful Eyes and Sharp Ears 6. Be a Judge of Faces and Moods 7. Don’t Show Off. Be Humble. 8. Don’t Try to Be Funny 9. Be Bold, Not Rude 10. Never Lose Your Temper 11. Don’t Be Boring The Bar is a great institution — learn from it, grow with it, and enjoy every moment of your journey.

(新山5日讯)关于新山一名16岁少年出生时,因涉及的私人妇产中心和医生疏忽,以致出现 脑部受损案件,新山高庭法官裁决,案中的私人妇产中心和医生需承担总计410万令吉赔偿金。  根据《自由今日大马》报道,新山高庭法官努鲁胡达是于前天,对上述案件作出判决,裁定 该名16岁少年获一般损失(general damages)赔偿金60万令吉以及350万令吉用作未来康 复医疗费(future rehabilitation)。  法官裁决,此案少年的母亲也获得8万令吉的情绪悲痛与焦虑赔偿。至于负责进行剖腹接生的 妇产中心和医生,则必须承担10万令吉的堂费。  案中的私人妇产中心和医生,过后已对新山高庭的判决提出上诉。  法官在判词中指出,医生必须负上责任,因为他对案中母亲和她的宝宝在照顾方面出现职务  上的疏忽,而在这同时,妇产中心的业主也得承担间接的责任。  法官表示,医生较晚进行剖腹手术,必须对孩子目前出现的情况负责。  案件中的母亲是于2020年代表她的儿子,入稟法庭提告上述两造。  根据《自由今日大马》早前报道,案件中的母亲于2009年9月28日早上10时,在上述位于新 山的妇产中心,被医生告知,指脐带环绕胎儿脖子。但是,医生却于晚上7时才进行手术。  据报道,婴儿面对吸吮能力低弱和呼吸困难,陷入昏睡状态能问题,于2009年10月1日凌晨5 时30分,被救护车载往苏丹后阿米娜医院。  婴儿过后被诊断,出现低血糖及感染情况。婴儿于同年11月14日出院返家后,出现抽搐和嘴 巴扭曲的情况。过后经私人医院检查揭露婴儿遭受脑损情况。  基于医疗成本问题,婴儿于2023年11月15日重新入住政府医院。一星期后,婴儿被转介到吉 隆坡医院,接受儿童神经科医生的治疗,并证实婴儿病况。  此案起诉人的代表律师,分别为R再耶巴南、N惹卡德山、陈克里斯多分(译音)、S沙米南。  被告代表律师则是B迪呢斯和依林索拉耶。  来源：https://www.sinchew.com.my/news/20250805/nation/6755058

By V Anbalagan Hakim memberi award RM600,000 kepada remaja itu sebagai ganti rugi am dan RM3.5 juta untuk pemulihan masa depan. PETALING JAYA: Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru memberi award RM4.1 juta kepada seorang remaja 16 tahun yang mengalami kerosakan otak teruk ketika lahir, selepas mendapati seorang doktor dan pemilik rumah bersalin swasta bertanggungjawab atas kecuaian perubatan. Hakim Nurulhuda Nuraini Nor memberikan award RM600,000 kepada remaja itu sebagai ganti rugi am dan RM3.5 juta untuk pemulihan masa depan. Ibunya pula diberikan ganti rugi RM80,000 bagi tekanan emosi serta keresahan. Pemilik rumah bersalin di Johor Bahru itu dan doktor yang menyambut kelahiran remaja terbabit melalui pembedahan Caesarean diarah membayar kos RM100,000. Doktor dan rumah bersalin itu sudah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan berkenaan. Hakim dalam penghakiman bertulis yang dikeluarkan baru-baru ini berkata: “Doktor itu bertanggungjawab kerana mengabaikan tugasnya menjaga ibu dan bayi itu, manakala pemilik rumah bersalin terbabit bertanggungjawab secara wakil.” Nurulhuda berkata, doktor itu bertanggungjawab atas keadaan kanak-kanak berkenaan kerana lewat melakukan pembedahan. Ibunya memfailkan saman pada 2020 bagi pihak anak lelakinya, yang bergantung kepadanya. Menurut fakta kes, wanita itu ke rumah bersalin terbabit, yang juga sebuah klinik, kira-kira 10 pagi 28 Sept 2009. Beliau kemudian dinasihatkan menjalani pembedahan Caesarean oleh doktor disebabkan tali pusat melilit leher bayi. Tetapi, doktor itu hanya melakukan pembedahan Caesarean dan menyambut kelahiran bayi itu pada 7 malam. Kira-kira 5.30 pagi 1 Okt 2009, bayi itu dihantar ke Hospital Sultanah Aminah dengan ambulans kerana tidak menyusu dengan baik, sukar bernafas dan lesu. Beliau didapati mengalami hipoglisemia teruk (gula darah rendah) dan jangkitan. Selepas keluar hospital pada 14 Nov, bayi itu didapati mengalami kekejangan otot dan mulutnya terherot. Pemeriksaan perubatan di sebuah hospital swasta mengesahkan beliau mengalami kerosakan otak. Atas faktor kos, bayi itu dimasukkan semula ke hospital kerajaan selama seminggu mulai 15 Nov, sebelum dirujuk ke Hospital Kuala Lumpur pada 23 Nov, di mana pakar neurologi kanak-kanak mengesahkan keadaan kesihatannya. Peguam R Jayabalan, N Jegatheesan, Christopher Tan dan S Shamilan mewakili plaintif, manakala peguam B Thinesh serta Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Aman mewakili defendan. Sumber daripada: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2025/08/03/remaja-alami-kerosakan-otak-ketika-lahir-dapat-ganti-rugi-rm4-juta

By V Anbalagan The doctor who delivered the baby was found liable for negligence, and the High Court held that the nursing home was vicariously liable. PETALING JAYA: A 16-year-old who suffered severe brain damage at birth has been awarded RM4.1 million in damages after the High Court in Johor Bahru found the owner of a private maternity home and a doctor liable for medical negligence. Justice Nurulhuda Nuraini Nor awarded the teenager RM600,000 in general damages and RM3.5 million for his future rehabilitation. The mother was awarded RM80,000 damages for emotional distress and anxiety. The owner of the nursing home in Johor Bahru and the doctor who delivered the boy by way of a Cesarean section were ordered to pay RM100,000 costs. The doctor and the nursing home have filed an appeal against the decision. In the written judgment, the judge said: “The doctor is liable because he had neglected his duty of care to the mother and her baby, while the owner of the maternity home was vicariously liable.” Nurulhuda said the doctor was to be held responsible for the child’s condition due to the late procedure. The mother had filed the suit in 2020 on behalf of her son, who is dependent on her. The facts of the case revealed that the mother went to the maternity home, which is also a clinic, at about 10am on Sept 28, 2009. She was later advised to undergo a C-section by the doctor as the umbilical cord was surrounding the baby’s neck. However, the doctor only carried out the Caesarean and delivered the baby at 7pm. At about 5.30am on Oct 1, 2009, the baby was sent to Sultanah Aminah government hospital by ambulance as he was not sucking well, had breathing difficulties, and was lethargic. He was found to be suffering from severe hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) and had an infection. The baby was discharged on Nov 14 but after returning home, he was found jerking while his mouth had become distorted. A medical examination at a private hospital revealed he had suffered brain damage. Due to cost reasons, the baby was readmitted to the government hospital for a week from Nov 15. On Nov 23, he was referred to Hospital Kuala Lumpur and was attended to by a consultant child neurologist, who confirmed his medical condition. Lawyers R Jayabalan, N Jegatheesan, Christopher Tan and S Shamilan acted for the plaintiff, while counsel B Thinesh and Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Aman represented the defendants. Source: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/08/03/rm4mil-award-for-teen-who-suffered-brain-damage-at-birth