Introduction to automatic exchange of information in Malaysia ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.Malaysia is committed to implementing and adhering to international standards on tax transparency, including the exchange of information on request under comprehensive double tax agreements and the automatic exchange of financial account information (AEOI) under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—see Practice Note: Automatic exchange of information—outline—Global Common Reporting Standard. It is not maintained and for background information only. Malaysia has reached an agreement in substance with the USA to implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which is based on the Model 1 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Although this agreement has yet to be signed by the parties, Malaysia is still on the US Department of Treasury's IGA list and treated as if there is an IGA in effect. This Practice Note covers the implementation of AEOI rules in Malaysia. It does not cover FATCA. For general

The exchange of information between HMRC and tax authorities in other territories is an essential tool in enabling authorities both to administer and enforce their own taxes, and to tackle avoidance and evasion. The importance of effective exchange of information has increased over the years as international trade barriers have been reduced and capital has become more mobile. The UK has historically exchanged tax-related information on request or spontaneously, but in recent years there has been a shift towards the automatic exchange of information. The US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) provided a catalyst by requiring the automatic exchange of information regarding US citizens between foreign (ie non-US) financial institutions and the tax authorities of the US. The US and the G5 countries (the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) developed model Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGAs) to assist countries in complying with the demands of FATCA. Based on these model IGAs, the OECD developed the global Common Reporting Standard (CRS) for automatic exchange of information. In parallel with the bilateral IGAs being put in place, the

ARCHIVED: Warning: this is for historical purposes only. This pilot scheme has now ended. Where and when did it apply? The Automatic Pilot Scheme (the Scheme) applied to all claims started on or after 1 October 2009 and ran until 30 September 2012. What was it? The Scheme worked so that in the event of default by a party to file important documents during the proceedings their claim was automatically struck out without any further order of the court. In addition, the Scheme provided that where parties wished to seek a stay of proceedings to explore settlement there was, no automatic strike out but, an automatic order for a stay. It was therefore important to be aware of the circumstances in which the Scheme applied which were where: • all parties requested a stay of the proceedings for a period of one month • any party failed to file an allocation questionnaire • a party failed to file a pre-trial checklist and the case involved one claimant and one defendant and was allocated to

Employers have a duty to: • re-enrol eligible jobholders automatically into an automatic enrolment scheme broadly every three years (where they are not active members of a qualifying scheme on the relevant date) • re-enrol eligible jobholders and non-eligible jobholders automatically into a automatic enrolment scheme immediately in certain circumstances (eg if they cease active membership of a qualifying scheme due to an action of the employer) The date, with effect from which an employer must re-enrol a jobholder automatically, is called the automatic re-enrolment date. Irrespective of the circumstances in which a jobholder is re-enrolled (whether cyclical or immediate), the process of automatic re-enrolment is the same as for auto-enrolment and the employer must follow the same steps set out in law as for auto-enrolment, so that the jobholder becomes an active member with effect from their automatic re-enrolment date. Employers must re-register with the Pensions Regulator to tell the Regulator how they have complied with their automatic re-enrolment duty. The Pensions Regulator has published guidance for employers and professional advisers on the law surrounding automatic

Public Law analysis: This case provides the first judicial guidance on the test for lifting an automatic suspension under section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023). The Technology and Construction Court held that the new statutory regime represents a substantive departure from the American Cyanamid approach, with the adequacy of damages no longer carrying determinative weight. His Honour Judge Keyser KC emphasised that the court must balance the public interest in lawful procurement against the interests of suppliers and any other relevant considerations. Although damages were considered an adequate remedy for Parkingeye, the suspension was maintained because there was no sufficiently compelling public interest favouring contract award. The decision suggests contracting authorities may face greater difficulty obtaining orders lifting automatic suspensions under PA 2023. Produced in partnership with Sam Pringle and Ed Williams of DWF Law LLP.

This practical guidance relates to the Procurement Act 2023 regime As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023 (where applicable), whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/274, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/273, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1848) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. This practical guidance focusses on public procurement under PA 2023. For background reading on the previous regime, see Practice Note: Introduction to public contracts procurement—pre PA 2023 [Archived]. For practical guidance on automatic suspension under the previous legislation, see Practice Note: Automatic suspension—pre-PA 2023 [Archived]. Automatic suspension PA 2023, which governs procurements of public contracts above applicable thresholds (see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023 ), automatically imposes a requirement that prevents a contracting authority from entering into

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This practical guidance relates to the pre-Procurement Act 2023 regime This Practice Note contains guidance relevant to public procurement exercises commenced before the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force on 24 February 2025. In-scope procurements begun on or after this date are governed by PA 2023. Under the transitional and savings provisions for PA 2023, the previous public procurement regimes continue to apply to the extent necessary to allow contracting authorities to complete and manage procurements commenced before PA 2023 came into force. This Practice Note should be read in that context. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. Further practical guidance on PA 2023 is set out in a separate subtopic, see: Procurement Act 2023—overview. This includes the following Practice Note: Automatic suspension—PA 2023. Automatic suspension The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 govern in-scope procurements above the relevant thresholds (see Practice Note: Introduction to public contracts procurement—pre PA 2023 [Archived]).

ARCHIVED : This archived Practice Note looks at the government’s failed attempt, in 2015, to introduce a system of automatic transfers of small pension pots (also known as ‘pot follows member’) through the Pension Act 2014. Work on this was put on hold in October 2015, and this until July 2023 when the government officially decided to drop the ‘pot follows member’ approach in favour of a multiple default consolidator model to deal with the problem of deferred small pension pots. This Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information only. FORTHCOMING DEVELOPMENT: On 22 November 2023, the DWP published its response to the consultation on ending the proliferation of deferred small pension pots. The purpose of the consultation was to gather views on a proposed automated consolidation solution to tackle the rise of deferred small pots. The government concluded that the multiple default consolidator model is the best approach to tackling the deferred small pots challenge and has the potential to provide more net benefits to

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Any dismissal effected to seek to introduce a ‘restricted variation’ to an employee’s contract of employment, or to enable the employer to replace the employee with an individual who is not an employee of the employer, will be automatically unfair, under sections 104I and 104K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), expected to come into force for dismissals effective on or after 1 January 2027. Commencement provisions are awaited. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The existing enhanced protection from redundancy that is available to employees during pregnancy, maternity leave and other types of statutory leave (and for an additional period after the leave has ended) is to be extended to cover other forms of dismissal. The powers to make regulations under ERA 1996 ss 49D, 74, 75C, 75J, 80D and 80EH were extended by sections 26 and 27 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025), in force 6 January 2026 and 6 April 2026 respectively, and regulations are expected to come into effect in

There is a distinction between insane and non-insane automatism; insane automatism, otherwise known as insanity, does not provide a complete defence but rather a special verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. However, a defence of non-insane automatism provides a total defence which results in an acquittal. The distinction is that insane automatism is caused by an internal factor whereas the involuntary action for non-insane automatism must be caused by an external factor. Practitioners will need to consider carefully whether a defendant lacks the necessary mens rea due to non-insane automatism or whether the defence of insanity applies. Consideration will also need to be given to whether the automatism was self-induced by the defendant. This Practice Note focuses on non-insane automatism. See Practice Note: The defence of insanity regarding the defence of insane automatism (insanity). Burden of proof Where the defence of automatism is raised by the defendant, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt by showing that the act(s) done were voluntarily. In most cases the defence of automatism should be supported by medical evidence,

An act or acts carried out while a person can be said to lack the capacity to make independent rational decisions or lacks the animus to prevent themselves from carrying out an act.

Arbitration analysis: The São Paulo Court of Appeals held that the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle does not preclude a priori judicial review of an arbitration agreement in exceptional circumstances, finding the clause at issue pathological and allowing Automec’s application for early production of evidence to proceed before the Brazilian courts. The court relied particularly on the clause’s asymmetric provision permitting JCB alone to choose between arbitration and Brazilian courts, together with the apparent lack of a rational connection between the foreign elements of the arbitral arrangements and the parties’ Brazilian distribution relationship. The decision indicates that even arbitration agreements between sophisticated commercial parties may attract prior judicial scrutiny where their drafting undermines the mutual and binding character of the arbitration agreement, highlighting the importance of reciprocity and coherent jurisdictional choices in arbitration clauses used in Brazil. Produced in partnership with Renato Stephan Grion and Guilherme Piccardi de Andrade Silva of Pinheiro Neto Advogados.