Something that happened in connection with action taken by or on behalf of one of the authorities subject to investigation, being action taken in the exercise of administrative functions of that authority which caused injustice to a member of the public.

Section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974), creates the role of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) to investigate complaints of maladministration and/or service failure in relation to the following authorities: • any local authority including its members, officers or any committee or subcommittee (excluding town or parish councils) • combined authorities or any joint board for which the constituent authorities are all local authorities • a development corporation for the purposes of a news town or an urban development corporation • fire and rescue commissioners • school admission appeal panels • police and crime commissioners • a national park authority See Practice Note: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. What is Maladministration? LGA 1974 s 26, describes the matters that the LGO can investigate but does not define Maladministration in statute. Maladministration includes issues arising from: • an action or inaction • taken by or on behalf an authority subject to investigation, (see above for the authorities who can be investigated), and is • taken in the exercise of administrative functions of that authority, that • caused

This Practice Note discusses investigations and reports relating to maladministration, it should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [Archived] and Maladministration—complaints. Investigations The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has the same powers as the High Court with respect to the attendance and examination of witnesses and the production of documents. The LGSCO decides how the investigation should be conducted and can also appoint a mediator or other appropriate person to assist. Investigations must be done in private. They may involve obtaining evidence from complainants, third parties and authorities. They may also include interviews. The LGSCO may determine whether a person may be represented in the investigation. Outcomes If the LGSCO decides either not to investigate or to discontinue an investigation, a copy of a statement of reasons must be provided to all the persons concerned.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Malawi and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. Malawi is also a member of COMESA, which operates a supra-national merger control regime. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Malawian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Malawi? Malawi has recently enacted the Competition and Fair Trading Act of 2024 (Act), replacing the 1998 Act to address enforcement gaps and align with international best practices. The Act introduces mandatory notification for mergers and acquisitions, requiring approval before deals can close. Expanded definitions and protections for consumers, including those of digital products, and addressing unfair trading practices. New provisions to prevent exploitation by dominant buyers, especially in agriculture, are also included in the Act. The Malawian Competition and Fair Trading Commission (Commission) appears to consider that any merger between two or more independent enterprises, or takeover of one or more such enterprises, requires authorisation. The Act strengthens the enforcement mandate of the Commission

Arbitration analysis: In dismissing an application to stay court proceedings pending a reference to arbitration, the Malaysian Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) clarified the approach that ought to be taken by the courts when considering a stay application under Section 10 of the Malaysian Arbitration Act. When there is plainly an arbitration agreement but an assertion is made that the arbitration agreement was invalidated because it is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the courts should apply the ‘just and convenient’ approach, ie—in a situation where both the court and the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction and power to investigate and conclude on the validity of an arbitration agreement, the appropriate forum to do so must be the, on balance, more just and convenient forum, having regard to the facts and circumstances in issue. This contrasts with the situation where the existence of the arbitration agreement itself is in issue. In such circumstances, the courts should adopt the ‘prima facie approach’ which is to consider whether there is prima facie an arbitration agreement to resolve disputes. If so, the court should then stay the proceedings and leave the dispute to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Written by Asya Jamaludin, partner at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang (Singapore) LLP.

1. What is the applicable legislation? There is no omnibus legislation in Malaysia which governs foreign direct investment (FDI). In 2009, the Foreign Investment Committee’s guidelines which regulate foreign interest in Malaysian assets were repealed. With the deregulation, there is currently no overarching framework for foreign investments into Malaysia. FDI requirements are sector-specific. Certain sectors may have restrictions on FDIs and some may not. To explain, sector regulators (eg Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission) may impose foreign equity restrictions by way of licence conditions issued for regulated services. These FDI requirements are usually imposed in licensing policies, and generally not hardcoded in legislation. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? Foreign participation in an industry/sector is generally regulated by sector regulators. For example, the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry oversees international trade and industry; the Central Bank of Malaysia regulates the financial services sector (among others); the distributive trade sector is regulated by the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Costs of Living (MDTCL); and the Ministry of Communications

This table summarises all completed investigations by Malaysia’s competition authority (the Malaysian Competition Commission—MyCC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under Chapter 1, section 4 of the Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Facility-maintenance services• Abadi Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.• Kota Lanskap Sdn. Bhd.• Usia Maintenance Sdn. Bhd. Restrictive agreements—bid rigging • Infringement decision announced—08/07/2025; fines totalling RM 2.98m imposed Public works• 8 undertakings (listed here) Restrictive agreements—bid rigging • Infringement decision announced—28/02/2025; fines totalling RM 92.8m imposed Investigations under Chapter 2, section 10 of the Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments MyCC did not issue any decisions under Chapter 2 in 2025 2023 Investigations under Chapter 1, section 4 of the Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Poultry•

The Parliament of Malaysia has passed the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2024, amending the Arbitration Act 2005 [Act 646]. It aims to solidify Malaysia's standing in international arbitration and implements certain changes to the Asian International Arbitration Centre. It further seeks to align with international best practices to ensure transparency and accountability whilst also permitting the third-party funding of arbitration.

Arbitration analysis: The Malaysian Court of Appeal (the Court) recently had the opportunity to determine an issue relating to an increasingly common, but somewhat unbecoming, practice in international arbitration proceedings—a recalcitrant party repeatedly refusing to pay its share of the tribunal’s fees and the arbitral institution’s administrative costs. The Court’s declaration that the relevant arbitration agreement was: ‘null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed’, thereby allowing the claimant’s claim to proceed before the Malaysian courts notwithstanding that the parties had a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement is, at first glance, at odds with international arbitration practice, and the courts’ ‘pro-arbitration’ stance in many jurisdictions (Malaysia included). However, on a closer reading of the case, this somewhat unusual decision was correct in the circumstances, which may not be as relevant or common in Malaysian-seated arbitrations involving international parties. Written by Dan Perera, partner, and Johnson Teo, associate, at HFW Singapore LLP.

Arbitration analysis: The Federal Court of Malaysia in ING Bank NV and O.W. Bunker Far East (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd [2025] 6 MLJ 751 held that a party holding a foreign arbitral award may choose between two distinct enforcement routes: registration under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA 1958) in the form of a confirmation judgment or the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA). The AA does not impliedly repeal or prevail over REJA 1958 in relation to confirmation judgments from Commonwealth countries. When enforcing under REJA 1958, courts should apply minimal curial review rather than a de novo re-hearing of issues already determined by the arbitral tribunal. This ruling provides crucial strategic flexibility for award creditors to prevent award debtors from relitigating issues through procedural manipulation, all grounded in the principles of reciprocity and international comity. Written by Kwan Will Sen (partner) & Esther Hong (associate), Lim Chee Wee Partnership (LCWP).

Arbitration analysis: The Malaysian Federal Court has issued a decision widening the confidentiality of arbitral awards under Malaysian law. Parties seeking to enforce arbitral awards before the Malaysian courts will now only have to disclose the dispositive sections of arbitral awards, and not the tribunal's reasoning and findings. This carries practical implications for Malaysian-seated arbitrations going forward. In particular, different confidentiality regimes may apply to arbitral awards depending on the rules applicable to the arbitration. Parties intending to take advantage of the enhanced confidentiality under Malaysian law should therefore revisit the confidentiality standards applicable to their chosen arbitration regime. Peter Godwin, partner and head of disputes (Asia), and Lim Tse Wei, associate, at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, consider the practical implications of the judgment and the background to the case.

This Practice Note is part of a multi-jurisdictional guide addressing essential aspects of forming specific business entities in global jurisdictions. Leading law firms in the Multilaw global law firm network answer key questions on this topic. This guide discusses key considerations when forming a private company limited by shares in Malaysia. Current as of 24 November 2025. Authors: Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi and Tay Weng Hwee, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, a Multilaw member firm Common entities 1. What form of entity is the subject of this questionnaire? What other forms of entities are commonly used in this jurisdiction and are the subject of another questionnaire response? The subject of this response is the private company limited by shares (Sendirian Berhad or Sdn Bhd). 2. Identify other types of entities in your jurisdiction that exist but will not be the subject of a questionnaire response at this time Partnership, limited liability partnership, public limited company. General principles 3. What is the main source of law authorising this form of entity? The