Basic information			Substance of the ruling			Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date	Name of the case (or case number)	The body delivering the decision	Keywords, topic	Executive part	Brief summary	Full text	Page at the website of the issuing court	Page in other databases	Unofficial materials, press communications
December 14. 2023.		High Court of Malaysia	Vaccination; freedom of movement; discrimination	The High Court of Malaysia held that the vaccination mandate imposed on university lecturers and school teachers during the public health emergency was constitutional.	Five school teachers and nineteen university lecturers challenged a governmental circular ordering mandatory vaccination for school teachers and university lecturers during the public health emergency. The High Court dismissed the claim and held that the measure was necessary and proportionate during the public health emergency.				https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2023/12/malaysia-court-rejects-application-against-covid-19-vaccine-mandate
July 11. 2023.	MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd v Adrian Sia Koon Leng [2023] 1 LNS 1386.	Federal Court of Malaysia	Right to conduct a business	The Federal Court of Malaysia held that schemes of arrangements play a crucial role in the post-Covid recovery of Malaysian companies, however, such arrangements shall secure the proper representation of each creditor class, and a fair mechanism to weight the votes of different classes during the negotiations of these arrangements.	The Federal Court of Malaysia as the final instance court to deal with schemes of arrangement heard an appeal against such an arrangement and used this case to outline the constitutional principles of such negotiations in the post-Covid context. The Federal Court acknowledged the special role of such arrangements to maintain the liquidity of companies but also satisfy the legitimate demands of the creditors. Moreover, the Federal Court raised the attention that each class of creditors should be dully represented during such negotiations, while the votes of each class shall be fairly weighed to find a proper balance between the competing interests.				https://www.skrine.com/insights/alerts/august-2023/federal-court-related-party-creditors-and-third-pa
May 18. 2022.		High Court of Malaysia	State of emergency	The High Court of Malaysia rejected to refer before the Federal Court 34 constitutional questions submitted by individuals and representative bodies against the public health emergency measures imposed between January-August 2021.	The High Court of Malaysia rejected to refer before the Federal Court 34 constitutional questions submitted by individuals and representative bodies against the public health emergency measures imposed between January-August 2021.				https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/05/18/emergency-proclamation-high-court-dismisses-bid-by-bersih-malaysian-bar-to-refer-constitutional-questions-to-apex-court/7515
October 29. 2021.	No. MLJU 2198	High Court of Malaysia	Vaccination	The High Court of Malaysia refused to hear a challenge of teenagers against the implementation of vaccination policy for this age group.	The Ministry of Health issued a circular and a guideline in Malaysia to implement vaccination policy for teenagers between 12-17 years. Five persons from this age group challenged this decision and argued that the governmental circular does not properly take into account potential alternatives of vaccination. The High Court denied to hear the claim since the judicial review of the governmental measure would be in contrast with the interest of the majority who wanted to be vaccinated. Moreover, the executive had the necessary expertise and professional background to decide the matter rather than the judiciary.				https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/malaysia-high-court-no-mlju-2198-2021-10-29