POTENTIAL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF U.S. RETALIATORY TARIFFS ON MALAYSIAN TRADE

INTRODUCTION 

In February 2025, the Trump Administration imposed “retaliatory tariffs,” meaning a baseline of 10% on exports to bridge the gap between trade deficits1. The tariffs poses a significant threat to Malaysian industries such as electronics and manufacturing sectors, which are the key contributors to Malaysia’s economy2. This article will delve into the potential legal action from the government, legal implications for Malaysian businesses as well as government protective measures. 

WHAT ARE TARIFFS AND RETALIATORY TARIFFS AND WHAT DO THEY DO? Hahn summarised it well. Tariffs are levied by governments, aiming to generate income, safeguard local businesses or influence international relations. Although it reduces domestic market competitiveness, businesses relying on international exports would have to pay more. As for the countries that are getting tariffed, their respective goods would face reduced demands for exports as their goods become more expensive, which means lower sales and potential market share loss3. 

In this case, what was implemented are called retaliatory tariffs. They are tariffs that are typically responses to a country that imposes tariffs on imported goods from another country. 

Quintessentially, used to retaliate against another country’s trade policies that are unfair or harmful to its own economy. Essentially, an eye for an eye4. 

US-MALAYSIA TRADE RELATIONS 

The objective between the two countries under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement is to achieve mutual economic benefits by fostering private business partnerships and reinforcing global trade practices such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO)5. However, following the increase of tariffs meant that several industries in Malaysia would have to take a direct hit including electrical and electronics products, machinery and equipment, optical and scientific equipment and others, with the US being Malaysia’s second-largest export destination and third-largest trading partner in 2024. This surge of tariffs would likely result in increased costs, reduced product competitiveness, and affecting employment and income. Economists forecast a potential revised GDP growth of 4% for 2025 if a resolution is not achieved6 while Dr. Ida Yasin gave further warning of factory relocations and job losses7. 

POTENTIAL WTO LEGAL ACTION 

Nonetheless, it would be understandable to foresee the challenges Malaysian businesses are about to face, if a resolution is not able to be met, especially if the businesses are not able to comply with their part of the agreement, as they could possibly face reduction in profits due to the tariffs. 

Under WTO law and Dispute Settlement Understand (DSU)8, defines the stages to resolve dispute cases, specifically failure of compliance9: 

1. Consultations (Article 4): Members must respond to consultations requests within 10 days and engage in one within 30 days. Failure to do so within 60 days (or 20 days in urgent cases) would allow a request for a dispute panel. 
2. Panel proceedings (Article 6): A panel must be established at the next Dispute Body Settlement (DSB) meeting unless there’s a consensus against it. Requests should be written, identify the disputed measures and provide a brief legal basis. 
3. Appeal (Article 17): Only legal issues can be appealed. The Appellate body, consisting of rotating legal experts, hears cases within 60-90 days. They can uphold, reverse, or modify panel findings, which are binding unless protested within 30 days. 
4. Implementation and compliance (Article 21): Members are required to report implementation plans within 30 days, with developing countries receiving special consideration and the DSB monitors compliance until resolved. 
5. Compliance review (Article 21.5): Disputes over implementation may be referred back to the original pane within 90 days.  
6. Countermeasures (Article 22): If compliance fails, temporary remedies including compensation or suspension of concessions, contingent on the harm caused. Arbitration is available for disputes over the scope of these remedies. 

Yew Huoi, How & Associates have enlightened us on this matter10regarding the legality of the tariffs are yet to be investigated under WTO law, specifically under General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Articles I and II, which prohibits discriminatory treatment11 and excessive tariffs beyond bound rates12. With Malaysia being subject to higher tariffs, it may have grounds to initiate legal settlement under the WTO’s dispute settlement process. 

LEGAL CHALLENGES FOR MALAYSIAN BUSINESSES ARISING FROM THE TARIFFS 

Although international trade is mainly governed by WTO law, in cases where private contracts between Malaysian businesses and foreign entities are affected due to the tariffs, they might consider Malaysian laws. 

Contracts Act 1950 

The Contracts Act 1950 serves as a cornerstone for Malaysian contracts. By failing to deliver goods that were promised, it might violate or touch on these following legal principles, mainly breach of contract, frustration and force majeure13. 

Doctrine of Frustration 

Frustration is a crucial element. In Section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1950, it was stated when the promisor is not able to fulfil their part of the contract inadvertently, the contract would be void if action would be impossible or unlawful14. 

To determine whether a contract could be void under frustration, Malaysian courts would apply several tests from English common law15: 

1. Unforeseen event: The event itself should be unexpected and not addressed within the contract. 
2. No party at fault: The event could not result from the consequences of either party’s fault. 
3. Fundamental change in duties: The event must substantially alter the contract’s performance from what was agreed initially. 

If the above conditions are satisfied, Section 57(3)16 asserts that the promisor must compensate the promisee for any detriment sustained due to the lack of performance. 

There are several cases that illustrate the application of frustration in Malaysian courts. Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v Hamimah Bt Hussin & Anor (Affin Islamic Bank Bhd, Third Party) [2021]17 showcased a successful application of the doctrine. The court upheld frustration due to the unforeseen circumstances. Meanwhile, in Affin Bank Bhd v Dinesh Kanavaji a/l Kanawagi [2021]18, frustration was rejected due the the defendant’s own misconduct that led to non-performance.  

Therefore, imagine a Malaysian furniture company has a contract to supply chairs to a retailer in the US. Unfortunately, since the unexpected tariff increase, this would hinder the viability of the contract. This illustrates frustration since the tariff was unforeseen and not caused by either party, the tariff significantly altered the contract’s performance and potentially could be nullified due to frustration. Malaysian companies could claim the doctrine under Section 57(2)19. 

Doctrine of force majeure 

Although not specified in any Malaysian statute, it is defined as an uncontrollable and unanticipated event20. However, force majeure is a contract clause that is required to be explicitly stated and usually negotiated between parties involved and impliedly stated would not be allowed as depicted in BIG Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd v Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd [2018]2122.  

One relevant example to take into factor is the COVID-19 pandemic. Depending on the wording of the force majeure clause in the contract, the pandemic would amount to as one or not. If the clause includes “disease,” “outbreak,” or “global health emergency,” or any broader terms like “acts of government,” the pandemic could be considered a force majeure event23. In the case of SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd v MTD Construction Sdn Bhd (and Another Originating Summons) [2020]24, the High Court rejected the imposition of the force majeure clause despite the COVID-19 regulations because the contract did not explicitly state such events.  

Breach of contract 

Since Malaysian businesses have difficulty to provide goods as stipulated in the contract, failure to do so would mean that there is a breach of contract. 

A breach of contract simply means that the promisor(s) fails to execute or fulfil the terms in the contract as promised without a lawful excuse25. Though there are several types of breaches too, but in this case, it would most likely intertwine with material breach26. 

Material breach connotes failure to perform the core of the agreement which would make the contract unenforceable. Section 4027 specifies that inability to perform would render the promisee to have the power to end the contract unless the promisor had signified otherwise. Section 6528further elaborates that in order to rescind the contract, the beneficial party has to return to whom it was given from. Ban Hong Joo Mines Ltd v Chen & Yap Ltd [1969]29 demonstrates the legal principle. The court upheld the judgement against the appellants, deciding that they repudiated the contract by refusing payment and halting work, thus entitling the respondents to compensation for their previous work. 

However, in Section 74(1), it detailed that the injured party is entitled to compensation for losses that are foreseeable upon signing the contract30, but they are not entitled to remote or indirect losses as shown in Section 74(2)31. Even if there is a lack of contract, a resemblance of an obligation would suffice as Section 74(3) allows the injured party to claim compensation from it as if it was a legal contract32. 

The available remedies for breach of contract are various forms of damages, specific performances and injunctions. 

Damages are essentially monetary compensation and are the most prominent form of remedy for the injured party, also governed in Section 74. Nonetheless, damages come in different forms. First of all, compensatory damages are intended to recover the position of parties involved before the contract, including both direct and consequential losses. This is exemplified by the case of Bumi Armada Navigation Sdn Bhd v Star Cruises Services Ltd [2002]33. Secondly, nominal damages are usually minute damages thus the compensation itself is also small, shown in Chang Min Tat v Tan Kim Poh [1963]34. Thirdly, liquidated damages refers to agreed amounts during the contract formation but prior to the event itself. Lastly, exemplary or punitive damages are damages beyond compensatory purposes though rarely imposed unless there is dishonesty or malice as presented in Sunlife Malaysia Assurance Berhad v Mohd Yusof bin Mohamed Nasir [2004]3536. 

Meanwhile for specific performances, they are governed by Section 11 of the Specific Relief Act 195037. According to the section, specific performance could be enforced only when it  involves the performance of a trust, no clear standard to calculate actual damages, monetary damages is not adequate relief and that monetary compensation cannot be obtained38. United Plumbing and Sanitation Sdn Bhd v Taman Ratu Sdn Bhd and another application [2025]39 portrays that the plaintiff’s are not entitled to specific performance as the delay of the project was due to a landslide. 

Last but not least, injunctions as regulated by Part III of the Specific Relief Act 195040. It is there stated that injunction could present in either both forms, temporary or perpetual41. Temporary injunctions are granted as a last resort to prevent ongoing or future breaches of a legal right42, whereas a perpetual injunction is issued when obligations exist in the applicant’s favour43. Mandatory injunctions, in contrast to the two previous injunctions mentioned, compel a specific action44. Though, injunctions would be denied in cases such as interfering with public duties, criminal matters, or contracts not specifically enforceable45.  

In spite of the previous two doctrines, if there was no valid contractual clause or doctrine to support the companies, they might be ruled as breach of contract. Consequently, under Section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950, Section 11 and Part III of the Specific Relief Act 1950, depending on the courts’ interpretation, they would be liable and have to provide either damages, specific performances or injunctions. 

Business Regulations 

Business regulations are another consideration as the increase in tariffs sophisticated the commercial scene. 

Retrenchment of Employees 

Due to the potential reduction in profits, the Employment Act 195546, companies may need to navigate laws relating to layoffs, retrenchments, or temporary reductions in working hours. 

In Section 12(2)47 of the same act, prior to retrench employees, a written notice needed to be provided for a certain time frame. However, in Section 13(1)48, payment in lieu of notice if employees are not required to serve their notice period is sufficient. While in Section 60KA49, it governs the procedures for the retrenchment of a foreign worker. If it ended due to dismissal, expiration of their employment pass or deportation, the employer must notify the Director General within 30 days. Whereas, if they resigned, the employer must report within 14 days. 

Malaysian Insolvency Laws and Corporate Rescue Frameworks Firstly, Companies Act 201650 provides several facilitating mechanisms for corporate rescue. In Sections 404-42451, it comprises several processes such as appointment of judicial manager, moratorium on creditor actions, restructuring plan by judicial manager upon approval of creditors. This allows financially distressed companies to seek court protection from creditors during dire situations while restructuring. While in Sections 396-40352, they govern the guidelines of Corporate Voluntary Agreement which enables companies to propose a debt repayment plan to creditors without court supervision. 

Then, Insolvency Act 196753 governs insolvency for individuals and firms but also intersects with corporate insolvency. Section 1054included receivership which refers to when a receiver takes control of a business’s assets and sells them off to recover the debt owed to the secured creditor. The act also included compulsory and voluntary liquidation as outlined in Section 445-47555.  

GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO SUPPORT AFFECTED BUSINESSES Although there are no further updates as of 13 April 2025, government agencies such as the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) are crucial as they are crucial in regulating trade, negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs)56 and facilitating international export growth57. Moreover, under Chapter 2 of Promotions of Investments Act 198658, companies could apply for investment tax allowance for capital investment. 

Thereby, Malaysian businesses can utilise international dispute resolution mechanisms such as the WTO DSB or government agencies like MITI and MATRADE to leverage existing FTAs to diversify their export markets and reduce reliance on the US markets. They could as well apply for investment tax allowance under Chapter 2 of Promotions of Investments Act 1986. 

CONCLUSION 

America’s retaliatory tariffs have significantly implicated Malaysia’s export-driven economy, leaving local businesses legal, operational and financial strain. With various complexities ranging from potential contractual breaches to employment and insolvency concerns. However, businesses can seek resolution under Malaysian contract law, WTO dispute resolution or support from MITI, MATRADE and even FTAs. Though the legality of the tariffs remain questionable, which leaves worldwide nations space to contest their validity. Ultimately, this crisis presents an opportunity to strengthen legal protections and explore new trade avenues, paving the way for a more resilient economic future. 

REFERENCE(S) 

1. The White House, ‘Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase Our Competitive Edge, Protect Our Sovereignty, and Strengthen Our National and Economic Security’ (The White House, 2 April 2025) <https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trum 

p-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereig nty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/#:~:text=A%202023%20repo rt%20by%20the,%24300%20billion%20of%20U.S.%20imports&text=The%20Unite d%20States%20imposes%20a,and%20India%20(70%25)%20impose> accessed 10 April 2025 

2. (The observatory of economic complexity) <https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/mys/partner/usa> accessed 10 April 2025 
3. Hahn C, ‘Tariffs 101: What Are They and How Do They Work?’ (Oxford Economics, 19 March 2025) <https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/tariffs-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-t hey-work/> accessed 10 April 2025 
4. ‘Retaliatory Tariff’ (LSData) <https://www.lsd.law/define/retaliatory-tariff> accessed 10 April 2025 
5. Trade And Investment Framework Agreement Between The Government Of The United States Of America And The Government Of Malaysia. 
6. Mahalingam E, ‘Trump’s Tariffs: What Is the Impact on Malaysia?’ (The Star, 7 April 2025) 

<https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2025/04/07/trumps-tariffs-what -is-the-impact-on-malaysia> accessed 11 April 2025 

7. Karr S, ‘What Do Trump’s Tariffs Actually Mean for M’sia? We Asked Local Experts & Biz Owners.’ (Vulcan Post, 10 April 2025) <https://vulcanpost.com/884811/us-tariffs-impact-malaysian-businesses-interview-opi nion/amp/> accessed 11 April 2025 
8. Dispute Settlement Understand (DSU). 
9. World Trade Organisation Agreement, Annex 2. 
10. Yew Huoi, How & Associates Law Firm, ‘Legal Updates – International Trade – Legality of the 24% U.S. Tariff on Malaysian Exports under International Trade Law: Yew Huoi, How & Associates: Leading Malaysia Law Firm’ (Yew Huoi, How &

Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm, 3 April 2025) <https://yhalaw.com.my/legal-updates-international-trade-legality-of-the-24-u-s-tariff on-malaysian-exports-under-international-trade-law/> accessed 11 April 2025 

11. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, Article I. 12. GATT 1994, Article II. 
12. Cunanan J, ‘Understanding Malaysian Contract Law 2024’ (Lexagle, 2024) <https://www.lexagle.com/blog-en-sg/understanding-malaysian-contract-law-a-compr ehensive-overview#toc-1> accessed 12 April 2025 
13. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 57(2) 
14. Yeong & Associates, ‘Frustration of Contracts’ (Yeong & Associates, 13 August 2024) <https://www.yeongassociates.com/post/frustration-of-contracts> accessed 12 April 2025 
15. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 57(3). 
16. Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v Hamimah Bt Hussin & Anor (Affin Islamic Bank Bhd, Third Party) [2020] MLJU 2152; [2021] 2 MLJ 22.
17. Affin Bank Bhd v Dinesh Kanavaji a/l Kanawagi [2021] MLJU 2073; [2022] 7 MLJ 404.
18. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 57(2). 
19. Kevin & Wu Associates, ‘The Importance of Force Majeure: Key Points’ (KevinWu & Associates, 10 September 2024) <https://www.kevinwuassociates.com/post/the-importance-of-force-majeure-key-poin ts#:~:text=The%20term%20’Force%20Majeure’%20has,be%20neither%20anticipate d%20nor%20controlled’.> accessed 12 April 2025 
20. BIG Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd v Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 54. 22. Syed Zomael Syed Hussain and Fozi Addina Mohamed Fozi, ‘Covid-19: A Force to Invoke Force Majeure?’ (Azmi & Associates, 15 May 2023) <https://www.azmilaw.com/insights/covid-19-a-force-to-invoke-force-majeure/> accessed 12 April 2025 
21. SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd v MTD Construction Sdn Bhd (and Another Originating Summons) [2020] MLJU 2038.
22. Akmal Saufi MK, ‘Breach of Contract in Malaysia’ (ASCO LAW, 24 May 2024) <https://www.ascolaw.co/post/breach-of-contract-in-malaysia#:~:text=In%20Malaysi a%2C%20like%20in%20many,but%20also%20individuals’%20personal%20obligatio ns.> accessed 12 April 2025
23. Yeong & Associates, ‘Breach of Contract and Remedies Available in Malaysia’ (Yeong & Associates, 11 July 2024) <https://www.yeongassociates.com/post/breach-of-contract-and-remedies-available-in -malaysia> accessed 12 April 2025 
24. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 40. 
25. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 65. 
26. Ban Hong Joo Mines Ltd v Chen & Yap Ltd [1969] 2 MLJ 83.
27. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 74(1). 
28. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 74(2). 
29. Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 74(3). 
30. Bumi Armada Navigation Sdn Bhd v Star Cruises Services Ltd [2002] 4 MLJ 537. 33. Chang Min Tat v Tan Kim Poh [1963] MLJ 266. 
31. Sunlife Malaysia Assurance Berhad v Mohd Yusof bin Mohamed Nasir [2004] 4 MLJ 465. 
32. Kevin Wu & Associates, ‘Remedies for Breach of Contract under Malaysian Law’ (KevinWu & Associates, 10 September 2024) <https://www.kevinwuassociates.com/post/remedies-for-breach-of-contract-under-mal aysian-law> accessed 12 April 2025 
33. Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), s 11. 
34. United Plumbing and Sanitation Sdn Bhd v Taman Ratu Sdn Bhd and another application [2025] 7 MLJ 544. 
35. Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III. 
36. Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 51(1). 
37. Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 52(1). 
38. Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 53. 
39. Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 54. 
40. Employment Act 1955 (Act 265). 
41. Employment Act 1955 (Act 265), s 12(2). 
42. Employment Act 1955 (Act 265), s 13. 
43. Employment Act 1955 (Act 265), s 60KA. 
44. Companies Act 2016 (Act 777). 
45. Companies Act 2016 (Act 777), ss 404-424. 
46. Companies Act 2016 (Act 777), ss 396-403. 
47. Insolvency Act 1967 (Act 360).
48. Insolvency Act 1967 (Act 360), s 10. 
49. Insolvency Act 1967 (Act 360), ss 445-475. 
50. ‘Free Trade Agreements’ (MITI FTA) <https://fta.miti.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/82> accessed 13 April 2025 54. ‘Home’ (MATRADE) <https://www.matrade.gov.my/en/about-matrade> accessed 13 April 2025 
51. Promotion of Investments Act 1986 (Act 327), Chapter 2.

1 The White House, ‘Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase Our Competitive Edge, Protect Our Sovereignty, and Strengthen Our National and Economic Security’ (The White House, 2 April 2025) <https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emerge ncy-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-securi ty/#:~:text=A%202023%20report%20by%20the,%24300%20billion%20of%20U.S.%20imports&text=The%20 United%20States%20imposes%20a,and%20India%20(70%25)%20impose> accessed 10 April 2025

2(The observatory of economic complexity) <https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/mys/partner/usa> accessed 10 April 2025 

3 Clarissa Hahn, ‘Tariffs 101: What Are They and How Do They Work?’ (Oxford Economics, 19 March 2025) <https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/tariffs-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-they-work/> accessed 10 April 2025 

4‘Retaliatory Tariff’ (LSData) <https://www.lsd.law/define/retaliatory-tariff> accessed 10 April 20255 Trade And Investment Framework Agreement Between The Government Of The United States Of America And The Government Of Malaysia. 

6 Eugene Mahalingam, ‘Trump’s Tariffs: What Is the Impact on Malaysia?’ (The Star, 7 April 2025) <https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2025/04/07/trumps-tariffs-what-is-the-impact-on-malaysi a> accessed 11 April 2025 

7 Suren Karr, ‘What Do Trump’s Tariffs Actually Mean for M’sia? We Asked Local Experts & Biz Owners.’ (Vulcan Post, 10 April 2025) <https://vulcanpost.com/884811/us-tariffs-impact-malaysian-businesses-interview-opinion/amp/> accessed 11 April 2025 

8 Dispute Settlement Understand (DSU).

9 World Trade Organisation Agreement, Annex 2. 

10 Yew Huoi, How & Associates Law Firm, ‘Legal Updates – International Trade – Legality of the 24% U.S. Tariff on Malaysian Exports under International Trade Law: Yew Huoi, How & Associates: Leading Malaysia Law Firm’ (Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm, 3 April 2025) <https://yhalaw.com.my/legal-updates-international-trade-legality-of-the-24-u-s-tariff-on-malaysian-exports-und er-international-trade-law/> accessed 11 April 2025 

11 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, Article I. 

12 GATT 1994, Article II. 

13 Joy Cunanan, ‘Understanding Malaysian Contract Law 2024’ (Lexagle, 2024) <https://www.lexagle.com/blog-en-sg/understanding-malaysian-contract-law-a-comprehensive-overview#toc-1> accessed 12 April 2025

14 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 57(2). 

15 Yeong & Associates, ‘Frustration of Contracts’ (Yeong & Associates, 13 August 2024) <https://www.yeongassociates.com/post/frustration-of-contracts> accessed 12 April 2025 16 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 57(3). 

17 Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v Hamimah Bt Hussin & Anor (Af in Islamic Bank Bhd, Third Party) [2020] MLJU 2152; [2021] 2 MLJ 22.

18 Af in Bank Bhd v Dinesh Kanavaji a/l Kanawagi [2021] MLJU 2073; [2022] 7 MLJ 404. 19 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 57(2). 

20 Kevin & Wu Associates, ‘The Importance of Force Majeure: Key Points’ (KevinWu & Associates, 10 September 2024) <https://www.kevinwuassociates.com/post/the-importance-of-force-majeure-key-points#:~:text=The%20term% 20’Force%20Majeure’%20has,be%20neither%20anticipated%20nor%20controlled’.> accessed 12 April 2025 

21 BIG Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd v Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 54. 

22 Syed Zomael Syed Hussain and Fozi Addina Mohamed Fozi, ‘Covid-19: A Force to Invoke Force Majeure?’ (Azmi & Associates, 15 May 2023) <https://www.azmilaw.com/insights/covid-19-a-force-to-invoke-force-majeure/> accessed 12 April 2025 

23 Ibid (n 22).

24 SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd v MTD Construction Sdn Bhd (and Another Originating Summons) [2020] MLJU 2038. 

25 Akmal Saufi MK, ‘Breach of Contract in Malaysia’ (ASCO LAW, 24 May 2024) <https://www.ascolaw.co/post/breach-of-contract-in-malaysia#:~:text=In%20Malaysia%2C%20like%20in%20 many,but%20also%20individuals’%20personal%20obligations.> accessed 12 April 2025 26 Yeong & Associates, ‘Breach of Contract and Remedies Available in Malaysia’ (Yeong & Associates, 11 July 2024) <https://www.yeongassociates.com/post/breach-of-contract-and-remedies-available-in-malaysia> accessed 12 April 2025 

27 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 40. 

28 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 65. 

29 Ban Hong Joo Mines Ltd v Chen & Yap Ltd [1969] 2 MLJ 83. 

30 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 74(1).

31 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 74(2). 

32 Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), s 74(3). 

33 Bumi Armada Navigation Sdn Bhd v Star Cruises Services Ltd [2002] 4 MLJ 537. 

34 Chang Min Tat v Tan Kim Poh [1963] MLJ 266. 

35 Sunlife Malaysia Assurance Berhad v Mohd Yusof bin Mohamed Nasir [2004] 4 MLJ 465. 36 Kevin Wu & Associates, ‘Remedies for Breach of Contract under Malaysian Law’ (KevinWu & Associates, 10 September 2024) <https://www.kevinwuassociates.com/post/remedies-for-breach-of-contract-under-malaysian-law> accessed 12 April 2025 

37 Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), s 11. 

38 Ibid (n 37).

39 United Plumbing and Sanitation Sdn Bhd v Taman Ratu Sdn Bhd and another application [2025] 7 MLJ 544. 40 Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III. 

41 Ibid (n 40). 

42 Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 51(1). 

43 Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 52(1). 

44 Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 53. 

45 Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137), Part III, s 54. 

46 Employment Act 1955 (Act 265).

47 Employment Act 1955 (Act 265), s 12(2). 

48 Employment Act 1955 (Act 265), s 13. 

49 Employment Act 1955 (Act 265), s 60KA. 

50 Companies Act 2016 (Act 777). 

51 Companies Act 2016 (Act 777), ss 404-424. 

52 Companies Act 2016 (Act 777), ss 396-403. 

53 Insolvency Act 1967 (Act 360). 

54 Insolvency Act 1967 (Act 360), s 10. 

55 Insolvency Act 1967 (Act 360), ss 445-475.

56‘Free Trade Agreements’ (MITI FTA) <https://fta.miti.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/82> accessed 13 April 2025 

57‘Home’ (MATRADE) <https://www.matrade.gov.my/en/about-matrade> accessed 13 April 2025 58 Promotion of Investments Act 1986 (Act 327), Chapter 2.