|
Issue #30/2019
25 July 2019
|
To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.
Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.
|
New This Week
|
OMAR OTHMAN v. KULIM ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD [2019] 7 CLJ 18
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA, BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA, MARY LIM JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: K-02(A)-936-05-2017]
15 OCTOBER 2018
LABOUR LAW: Employment – Termination – Employee terminated with salary and allowances in lieu of notice – Whether termination contractual right of employer provided under conditions of contract – Whether termination with just cause or excuse – Whether unlawful termination – Whether termination simpliciter – Employment Act 1955
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Award – Termination of employment – Employee terminated with salary and allowances in lieu of notice – Whether termination contractual right of employer provided under conditions of contract – Whether termination with just cause or excuse – Whether termination lawful – Whether termination simpliciter – Whether High Court correct in intervening and quashing award of Industrial Court – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20
-
Dilantha Ranjula Bandara Malagamuwa & Ors v. ADM Ventures (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 1441 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Dilantha Ranjula Bandara Malagamuwa v. ADM Ventures (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors and Other Cases [2018] 1 LNS 1135
-
Ikenna Emmanuel Chukwudulu v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 174 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Ikenna Emmanuel Chukwudulu [Criminal Trial No: 45A-40-04/2015]
Legal Network Series
|
KAVITHA MUNTHRY v. GANESAN V NARAINASAMY FAMILY LAW: Custody of children - Welfare of child of paramount consideration - Regard to wishes of parents - Children aged 7 and 4 - Whether mother entitled to custody during period of nurture - Application of presumption that the custody of any child below the age of seven years shall be given to the mother - Whether presumption successfully rebutted by husband - Whether petitioner wife's adulterous relationship relevant in rebutting presumption - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 88
|
|
|
SIVADEVI SIVALINGAM v. CIMB BANK BERHAD CIVIL PROCEDURE: Limitation - Twelve year limitation period - Commencement date of 12 year period - Default in repayment arose in 2003 whilst Form 16D notice served in 2016 - Whether limitation ran from date of default in repayment or from date of service of Form 16D notice - Whether limitation time bar amounts to cause to the contrary - Limitation Act 1953, s. 21, National Land Code 1965, ss. 256, 257, Rules of Court 2012, O. 83 LAND LAW: Foreclosure - Order for sale - Cause to the contrary - Twelve year limitation period - Whether sale of land barred by limitation - Whether limitation time bar amounts to cause to the contrary - Limitation Act 1953, s. 21, National Land Code 1965, ss. 256, 257, Rules of Court 2012, O. 83 LAND LAW: Mortgage - Definition - Reference to 'mortgage' in Limitation Act 1953 - No reference to 'mortgage' in National Land Code 1965 - Whether 'mortgage' recognised by National Land Code 1965 - Difference between 'charge' and 'mortgage' - Whether 'mortgage' equivalent to 'charge' - Whether Limitation Act applicable to 'mortgage' as distinct from 'charge' - Limitation Act 1953, s. 2, National Land Code 1965
|
|
|
AHAMIT UMPING v. PP EVIDENCE: Witness - Child witness - Witness 10 years old at time of offence, 11 years old at time of trial - Whether witness competent to understand questions, give rational answers and to tell the truth - Whether preliminary examination conducted to ascertain competency of witness - Whether special method of questioning required - Whether failure to conduct preliminary examination fatal - Evidence Act 1950, s. 133A
|
|
|
BERKENAAN: FOONG YOON SENG; EX-PARTE: CALSBERG MARKETING SDN BHD KEBANKRAPAN: Notis - Pengetepian - Notis kebankrapan berasaskan perintah persetujuan yang dimasuki penghutang penghakiman dan pihak lain - Jumlah keberhutangan yang dinyatakan di dalam notis kebankrapan termasuk bayaran yang perlu dibayar oleh pihak lain di dalam perintah persetujuan - Sama ada jumlah yang dinyatakan di dalam notis kebankrapan adalah jumlah sebenar yang ditanggung penghutang penghakiman - Sama ada jumlah hutang perlu dibahagi dua
|
|
|
LOW KHENG TEH lwn. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan habeas corpus - Tahanan di bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Pemohon dan peguamnya telah diminta keluar daripada bilik persidangan representasi semasa pegawai penyiasat polis membentangkan hujahannya - Sama ada lembaga penasihat telah mempertimbangkan representasi pemohon semasa menghantar syor kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong - Sama ada pemohon telah diberi peluang untuk membuat representasi yang efektif - Sama ada pendedahan maklumat sulit oleh pegawai penyiasat polis akan menjejaskan kepentingan negara - Sama ada perintah tahanan telah dicabar
|
CLJ 2019 Volume 7 (Part 1)
COURT OF APPEAL
There is nothing in the Companies Act 2016 to suggest that upon a winding-up, actions or appeals which had been filed by the company without the sanction or approval of the Liquidator are void ab initio and must be struck out. In appropriate circumstances, the court may even grant leave nunc pro tunc for the actions to continue.
Merais Sdn Bhd v. Lai King Lung & Anor [2019] 7 CLJ 1 [CA]
COMPANY LAW: Liquidation - Company wound-up - Appointment of official receiver ('OR') as liquidator - Notice of appeal by wound-up company - Whether wound-up company must obtain consent or sanction of OR before filing of notice of appeal - Whether actions or proceedings filed without sanction of liquidator void ab initio and must be struck out - Whether OR authorised to grant sanction retrospectively - Companies Act 2016, ss. 483(2) & 486(1)
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Badariah Sahamid, Mary Lim JJCA
- For the appellant - Gabriel Daniel & Sukhdev Kaur; M/s Paul Ong & Assocs
- For the respondents - Justin Voon, Ho Kok Yew & Khor Heng How; M/s Owee & Ho
Termination simpliciter is a concept of common law and is not part of the industrial jurisprudence of Malaysia under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. In Malaysia, even in the ‘probationary period’, termination must be anchored on the concept of just cause and excuse.
Omar Othman v. Kulim Advanced Technologies Sdn Bhd [2019] 7 CLJ 18 [CA]
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Termination - Employee terminated with salary and allowances in lieu of notice - Whether termination contractual right of employer provided under conditions of contract - Whether termination with just cause or excuse - Whether unlawful termination - Whether termination simpliciter - Employment Act 1955
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Award - Termination of employment - Employee terminated with salary and allowances in lieu of notice - Whether termination contractual right of employer provided under conditions of contract - Whether termination with just cause or excuse - Whether termination lawful - Whether termination simpliciter - Whether High Court correct in intervening and quashing award of Industrial Court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Badariah Sahamid, Mary Lim JJCA
- For the appellant - GL Ambrose & Aneera Chowdry; M/s Louis Ambrose Chambers
- For the respondent - Siti Rafidah Abdul Raof & Nurfarhana Fadzil; M/s Aswandi Hashim & Co
Witness statements recorded under s. 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not privileged from disclosure and must be furnished to the accused if so requested under s. 51 of the Code.
Siti Aisyah v. PP [2019] 7 CLJ 27 [CA]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Statements - Witness statements - Application for copies of witnesses' police statements recorded under s. 112 of Criminal Procedure Code - Application made at end of prosecution case and witnesses offered to defence - Whether statements subject to disclosure - Whether privileged documents - Whether disclosure provided under statute - Whether there was risk of tampering with witnesses - Whether police statements necessary and desirable for defence to advance its case - Whether refusal would result in miscarriage of justice
Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Rhodzariah Bujang JJCA
- For the appellant - Gooi Soon Seng, Choong Kak Sen, Selvi Sandrasegaram & Ooi Pen Lyn; M/s Gooi & Azura
- For the respondent - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar & Muhamad Iskandar Ahmad; DPPs
The High Court, in exercising its judicial review jurisdiction, cannot hear a dispute decided by the Industrial Court de novo. It should not interfere with the findings merely because, upon the same facts and evidence, it may come to a different conclusion.
Sunway University College v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2019] 7 CLJ 55 [CA]
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Constructive dismissal - Allegation of - Domestic inquiry found employee guilty of misconduct - Insubordination against superior - Employee downgraded from position and transferred without change in salary - Matter referred to Industrial Court - Industrial Court found employee defiant and committed acts of insubordination - Industrial Court found employer's decision to downgrade employee could not be subject of claim for constructive dismissal - Whether employee constructively dismissed
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Award - Appeal against - Domestic inquiry found employee guilty of misconduct - Insubordination against superior - Employee downgraded from position and transferred without change in salary - Matter referred to Industrial Court - Industrial Court found employee defiant and committed acts of insubordination - Industrial Court found employer's decision to downgrade employee could not be subject of claim for constructive dismissal - Industrial Court's award quashed by High Court - Whether findings of Industrial Court tainted with illegality and irrationality - Whether warranted intervention by High Court
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Mary Lim, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim JJCA
- For the appellant - Steve Thiru, Vilasini Menon & David Mathew; M/s Vilasini Menon
- For the respondent - Remi Pereira & Diana Dawson; M/s Remi & Co
HIGH COURT
An interim stay of a Winding-up Order pending appeal ought to be granted where there is nothing in the Order for the company to do or carry out to avoid winding-up. Such silence, coupled with other factors, may constitute ‘special circumstances’ to justify the grant of stay.
Kathryn Ma Wai Fong v. TMC Importer & Exporter Sdn Bhd [2019] 7 CLJ 69 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Application for stay of execution of winding up order pending appeal - Whether winding-up order based on monetary judgment - Whether commercially solvent company and able to pay debts - Whether goodwill and standing of company would be irreversibly affected if stay not granted - Whether winding-up order granted on findings of misfeasance or corporate shenanigans - Whether stay of winding-up order would be detrimental to commercial morality and interests of public - Whether special circumstances applicable - Whether sufficient case for interim stay pending disposal of appeal
COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Stay - Application for stay of execution of winding-up order pending appeal - Whether winding-up order based on monetary judgment - Whether commercially solvent company and able to pay debts - Whether goodwill and standing of company would be irreversibly affected if stay not granted - Whether winding-up order granted on findings of misfeasance or corporate shenanigans - Whether stay of winding-up order would be detrimental to commercial morality and interests of public - Whether special circumstances applicable - Whether sufficient case for interim stay pending disposal of appeal
Lim Hock Leng JC
- For the petitioner - Alvin Yong & Shirleen Ong; M/s Alvin Yong
- For the contributories - Stanley Eddy; M/s Battenberg & Talma
- For the respondent - Sim Hui Chuang; M/s Reddi & Co
It is the duty of the Director General of Inland Revenue to ascertain that only statutory deductions allowed by the Income Tax Act 1967 may be claimed by a taxpayer, nothing more and nothing less.
Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Kompleks Tanjong Malim Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2019] 7 CLJ 81 [HC]
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Deduction - Quit rent payments - Whether Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') empowered to apportion company's claim to deduct quit rent payments into allowable and disallowable portions under s. 33(1) of Income Tax Act 1967 - Duty of DGIR to ascertain only statutory deductions allowed by Income Tax Act 1967 may be claimed by taxpayer - Whether DGIR correct when restricting company's deduction to quit rents based on agricultural land and excluded quit rents based on value of commercial land - Failure by company to file correct returns to DGIR during years of assessment - Whether DGIR's imposition of penalties on company under s. 113(2) of Income Tax Act 1967 correct in law
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Special Commissioners - Deciding order - Appeal against - Special Commissioners of Income Tax held that Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') had no power to apportion taxpayer's claim into allowable and disallowable portions - Whether DGIR empowered to apportion company's claim to deduct quit rent payments into allowable and disallowable portions under s. 33(1) of Income Tax Act 1967 - Duty of DGIR to ascertain only statutory deductions allowed by Income Tax Act 1967 may be claimed by taxpayer - Whether DGIR correct when restricting company's deduction to quit rents based on agricultural land and excluded quit rents based on value of commercial land - Failure by company to file correct returns to DGIR during years of assessment - Whether DGIR's imposition of penalties on company under s. 113(2) of Income Tax Act 1967 correct in law
Azizah Nawawi J
- For the appellant - Ahmad Isyak Hassan; SRC & Ruzaidah Yaacob; RC
- For the respondent - Anand Raj, Foong Pui Chi & Boo Sha-Lyn; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
Although culpable homicide is a very serious crime, on the facts and circumstances herein, a sentence of two years’ imprisonment is a fair, appropriate and proportionate sentence to impose on the accused persons.
PP v. Fernando Esteban Candia Olcay & Anor [2019] 7 CLJ 96 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Adequacy - Culpable homicide - Plea of guilty - Accused pinning down deceased onto floor during scuffle and causing deceased to suffer asphyxia due to intermittent compression - Scuffle initiated by deceased - Whether accused persons only protecting themselves and trying to restrain victim - Whether deserving sentence as would promote rehabilitation and reformation - Public interest considerations - Imprisonment for a term of two years - Whether appropriate and adequate - Penal Code s. 304(b)
Mohd Nazlan Ghazali J
- For the prosecution - Hafizza Sauni; DPP
- For the accused - N Saraswati Devi, R Alagendra & V Alagendra; M/s N Saraswathy Devi
A Court Order requiring the doing of an act must specify a time frame before the party subjected to such Order can be committed for breach. Further, the court’s discretion to cure technical non-compliance can only be exercised if the non-compliance had not caused any injustice.
Rotta Research Laboratorium S.p.A. & Anor v. Ho Tack Sien & Ors [2019] 7 CLJ 113 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Committal proceedings - Order of injunction - Breach of - Whether injunction final and could not be questioned by any party - Mocking of court judgment and failure to withdraw averments - Whether breach of injunction satisfied beyond reasonable doubt - Whether mitigating factors satisfactory - Sentences - Whether discretionary in nature - Whether custodial sentence warranted
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Order of injunction - Time period for compliance not specified in order - Whether injunction flawed - Whether breached O. 42 r. 6(1) of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether O. 42 r. 6(1) only applies to mandatory order - Whether restraining judgment subject to O. 42 r. 6(1)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Order of court - Enforcement of court order by way of committal proceedings - Senior Assistant Registrar's order - Whether court order requiring doing of act must specify time frame before party subject to court order can be committed for breach - Failure to specify time period for compliance in order - Whether breach of O. 45 r. 5(1)(a), (A), (B), (2) & r. 6(2) of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether court has discretionary power under O. 1A read with O. 2 r. 1(1), (2), and (3) to cure technical non-compliance - Whether curable only if non-compliance had not caused injustice
Wong Kian Kheong J
- For the applicants - Suaran Singh Sidhu & Anne Ng Yuin Yuin; M/s Koh Dipendra Jeremiah Law
- For the respondents - Hoo Lin Coln & Terence Philips; M/s Lin Coln & Co
Tribunal Pengurusan Strata
Perkataan ‘shall’ dalam s. 117(2) Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 menunjukkan adalah keperluan mandatori untuk Tribunal Pengurusan Strata memberikan sebab-sebab keputusannya.
Tham Sau Hoong lwn. Tribunal Pengurusan Strata & Satu Lagi [2019] 7 CLJ 132 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hak milik strata - Perbadanan pengurusan - Ahli jawatankuasa perbadanan pengurusan yang dilantik tidak mematuhi Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 dan Peraturan Pengurusan Strata (Pengurusan dan Penyelenggaraan) 2015 - Menjalankan kerja-kerja ubah suai tanpa kebenaran perbadanan pengurusan - Sama ada ahli jawatankuasa menyalahgunakan kuasa - Sama ada layak menjadi ahli jawatankuasa
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hak milik strata - Tribunal Pengurusan Strata ('Tribunal') - Ahli jawatankuasa perbadanan pengurusan yang dilantik tidak mematuhi Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 dan Peraturan Pengurusan Strata (Pengurusan dan Penyelenggaraan) 2015 - Menjalankan kerja-kerja ubah suai tanpa kebenaran perbadanan pengurusan - Tribunal memutuskan ahli layak menjadi ahli jawatankuasa kerana telah meremedi kesalahan - Tribunal membuat keputusan tanpa memberi apa-apa alasan - Sama ada terdapat salah aturan - Sama ada Tribunal memahami fakta dan isu yang dikemukakan dan mematuhi peruntukan statutori - Sama ada keputusan Tribunal munasabah dan rasional - Sama ada Tribunal wajib menyediakan alasan keputusan
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Tribunal Pengurusan Strata ('Tribunal') - Ahli jawatankuasa perbadanan pengurusan yang dilantik tidak mematuhi Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 dan Peraturan Pengurusan Strata (Pengurusan dan Penyelenggaraan) 2015 - Menjalankan kerja-kerja ubah suai tanpa kebenaran perbadanan pengurusan - Tribunal memutuskan ahli layak menjadi ahli jawatankuasa kerana telah meremedi kesalahan - Tribunal membuat keputusan tanpa memberi apa-apa alasan - Sama ada terdapat salah aturan - Sama ada keputusan Tribunal munasabah dan rasional - Sama ada perintah keseluruhan keputusan Tribunal wajar dibatalkan dan diketepikan - Sama ada tuntutan wajar didengar semula oleh Pengerusi lain Tribunal
Hadhariah Syed Ismail H
- Bagi pihak pemohon - VS Khaw; T/n Veon Szu & Kok Thye
- Bagi pihak responden kedua - SS Tham; T/n SS Tham & Co
LNS Article(s)
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS AND SWEARING A RELIGIOUS OATH OR MAKING NON-RELIGIOUS AFFIRMATION BEFORE THE MALAYSIAN COURTS [Read excerpt]
by TEOH SHU YEE* [2019] 1 LNS(A) xcivTHE RIGHT TO LIFE AND DEATH PENALTY IN SHARIAH* [Read excerpt]
by MOHAMED AZAM MOHAMED ADIL [2019] 1 LNS(A) xciiDISEQUILIBRIUM* [Read excerpt]
by BERNARD COLLAERY** [2019] 1 LNS(A) xciii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 813 | Departure Levy Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | - |
| ACT 812 | Finance Act 2018 | The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; The Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 31; The Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 63; The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 69; The Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 71; The Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 83; The Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 91 | - |
| ACT 811 | Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (Dissolution) Act 2018 | 1 January 2019 [PU(B) 732/2018] | - |
| ACT 810 | Subang Golf Course Corporation Act 1968 (Revised 2018) | 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 26 of 1968; First Revision - 1993 (Act 509 wef 8 October 1993) | - |
| ACT 809 | Pool Betting Act 1967 (Revised 2018) | 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1967 as Act of Parliament No 72 of 1967; First Revision - 1989 (Act 384 wef 21 September 1989) | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1594 | Excise (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 176 |
| ACT A1593 | Customs (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 235 |
| ACT A1592 | Administration Of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 505 |
| ACT A1591 | Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2019 | 1 September 2019 [PU(B) 330/2019] | ACT 67 |
| ACT A1590 | Supplementary Supply (2018) Act 2019 | 1 June 2019 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 165/2019 | Poisons (Amendment Of Poisons List) Order 2019 - Corrigendum | 13 June 2019 | PU(A) 8/2019 | |
| PU(A) 164/2019 | Income Tax (Deduction For Employment Of Senior Citizen, Ex-Convict, Parolee, Supervised Person And Ex-Drug Dependant) Rules 2019 | 11 June 2019 | Years of assessment 2019 and 2020 | ACT 53 |
| PU(A) 163/2019 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 7) Order 2019 | 7 June 2019 | Year of assessment 2016 until the year of assessment 2020 | ACT 53 |
| PU(A) 162/2019 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 6) Order 2019 | 7 June 2019 | Year of assessment 2016 | ACT 53 |
| PU(A) 161/2019 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 5) Order 2019 | 7 June 2019 | Year of assessment 2016 | ACT 53 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 330/2019 | Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation | 4 July 2019 | 5 July 2019 | ACT A1591 |
| PU(B) 329/2019 | Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation | 4 July 2019 | 5 July 2019 | ACT A1566 |
| PU(B) 328/2019 | Notice To Third Parties | 3 July 2019 | 4 July 2019 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 327/2019 | Notification Of Values Of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 | 3 July 2019 | 5 July 2019 to 18 July 2019 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 326/2019 | Notification Under Section 8 | 1 July 2019 | 2 July 2019 | ACT 369 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| ACT 254 | Limitation Act 1953 (Revised 1981) | ACT A1566 | 1 September 2019 [PU(B) 329/2019] | Sections 6A, 24A and 29 |
| ACT 67 | Civil Law Act 1956 (Revised 1972) | ACT A1591 | 1 September 2019 [PU(B) 330/2019] | Sections 2, 7, 11 and 28A |
| PU(A) 86/2016 | National Skills Development (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2016 | PU(A) 159/2019 | 1 June 2019 | Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 333/1992 | Tourism Industry (Tour Operating Business and Travel Agency Business) Regulations 1992 | PU(A) 158/2019 | 1 June 2019 | Regulations 2, 5, 6 and 6B; Second Schedule and Fourth Schedule |
| PU(A) 161/1977 | Excise Regulations 1977 | PU(A) 157/2019 | 1 July 2019 | Third Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 128/1999 | Income Tax (Allowance For Increased Exports) Rules 1999 | PU(A) 162/2019 | Year of assessment 2016 |
| PU(A) 158/2005 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 17) Order 2005 | PU(A) 161/2019 | Year of assessment 2016 |
| PU(A) 125/2018 | Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2018 | PU(A) 132/2019 | On the date of appointment of the persons named in the first column of the Schedule |
| PU(A) 144/2016 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Order 2016 | PU(A) 128/2019 | 8 May 2019 |
| PU(A) 1/1989 | Factories and Machinery (Noise Exposure) Regulation 1989 | PU(A) 59/2019 | 1 June 2019 |