Malaysia has ended its appeal over the legal treatment of liquid nicotine in vape and electronic cigarette products, according to a New Straits Times report published on August 18, 2026.
Representing the Health Minister and the Malaysian government, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) filed a notice of discontinuance with the Court of Appeal. The filing formally closes the appeal, leaving the earlier High Court ruling without a further challenge from the government through this particular legal process.
The notice, dated August 18, stated that the health minister and the Malaysian government intended to discontinue the entire appeal without an order for costs.
The dispute centers on whether liquid nicotine should be regulated under Malaysia’s Poisons Act 1952 and how the withdrawal may affect the country’s broader approach to nicotine and vaping products.
High Court Rejected Malaysia’s Removal of Liquid Nicotine From Poisons List
The latest development follows a Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling issued on May 15, 2026.
In 2023, Malaysia removed liquid nicotine and nicotine gels used in electronic cigarettes and vape products from the scheduled poisons list through amendments to the Poisons List. The policy change was associated with the government’s efforts to introduce taxation for nicotine-containing vape liquids.
The decision was later challenged by three non-governmental organisations: the Malaysian Council for Tobacco Control, Malaysian Green Lung Association, and Voice of the Children.
Justice Aliza Sulaiman subsequently ruled that the government’s decision was irrational and had been made without adequate consultation with the Poisons Board. The court also concluded that the decision was ultra vires Section 6 of the Poisons Act 1952.
As a result, the legal foundation for removing liquid nicotine from the poisons framework became the subject of renewed scrutiny.
Government Ends Appeal Against High Court Decision
Following the May ruling, Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad and the Malaysian government appealed the decision.
However, the government has now chosen to discontinue that appeal. According to CodeBlue, federal counsel from the Attorney-General’s Chambers filed the notice of discontinuance with the Court of Appeal on August 18.
The decision means the government will not continue its current appeal against the High Court judgment.
Importantly, the withdrawal should not automatically be interpreted as a new nationwide vape ban or a newly introduced vaping regulation. The immediate legal issue concerns the High Court’s ruling on the treatment of liquid nicotine under the existing poisons framework.
Questions about how the ruling affects the retail sale and distribution of nicotine vape products may therefore depend on subsequent government action and the interpretation and implementation of the relevant laws.
Liquid Nicotine Remains at the Heart of the Dispute
The case is primarily concerned with the regulatory classification of liquid nicotine, rather than creating a blanket ruling covering every type of electronic cigarette or vape device.
The key legal questions include:
- Whether liquid nicotine used in vape products falls under the Poisons Act 1952.
- Whether the government followed the required legal process when removing liquid nicotine from the scheduled poisons list.
- How the High Court ruling affects the existing regulatory treatment of nicotine-containing products.
- What steps the Malaysian government may take to clarify the legal framework.
For manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and consumers, the outcome could have implications for how nicotine-containing vape products are imported, sold, taxed, and regulated.
What the Appeal Withdrawal Means for Malaysia’s Vape Market
Malaysia has been developing a broader regulatory system for tobacco, vape, and other smoking-related products. The Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 introduced a wider legal framework covering smoking products, including electronic cigarettes and vape products.
The High Court’s liquid nicotine ruling adds another layer to this regulatory landscape. The government’s decision to abandon its appeal could prompt further discussion about how the Poisons Act, tobacco-control legislation, taxation rules, and other regulatory measures interact.
For now, withdrawing the appeal does not automatically introduce new vape sales regulations in Malaysia. Instead, the High Court ruling remains a significant legal development that could shape future discussions about the classification and control of liquid nicotine products.
Vape manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and consumers will likely be watching for additional guidance from Malaysian authorities. Key areas of interest include retail requirements, nicotine imports, taxation, licensing obligations, and the future regulatory framework for vape liquids.