|
Issue #37/2019
12 September 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
|
MOHAMMAD AZANUL HAQIMI TUAN AHMAD AZAHARI v.
TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS [2019] 8 CLJ 465
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK), BALIA YUSOF WAHI FCJ, TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT FCJ, ABANG ISKANDAR FCJ, NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(HC)-134-05-2018(B)]
17 JUNE 2019
A detenu detained under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 is entitled to make representations to the Advisory Board either personally or through a representative; where such detenu is present before the Board but denied the right to be represented by counsel, he is effectively denied his entire right to make representations, and is thus entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and be released from detention.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus – Detention order – Detention under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 – Representation before Advisory Board – Right to be represented by counsel – Request for second adjournment refused – Advisory Board proceeded to hear applicant without counsel – Whether a serious procedural breach – Whether writ ought to be issued – Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss. 3 & 9
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Detention order – Detention under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 – Application for writ of habeas corpus – Representation by counsel at hearing of representation – Whether denied by Advisory Board – Conflict of evidence – Minutes of Board hearing – Whether material evidence – Refusal to disclose minutes to court – Whether a suppression of material evidence – Whether attracting adverse inference – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) – Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss. 3 & 9
LEMBAGA KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA lwn.
PERSATUAN BOLA SEPAK KELANTAN & YANG LAIN [2019] 8 CLJ 527
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, KOTA BHARU
AHMAD BACHE H
[RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: DA-12A-06-07-2017]
23 NOVEMBER 2018
Sebagai pertubuhan amal yang tidak mengaut keuntungan dan didaftar di bawah Akta Pembangunan Sukan 1997, Persatuan Bola Sepak Kelantan bukan “association of persons” seperti yang dimaksud oleh s. 46 Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991, dan pemegang-pemegang jawatan Persatuan bukan “office bearers” seperti yang diperuntuk seksyen yang sama. Oleh itu, KWSP tiada apa-apa kausa tindakan terhadap Persatuan dan tidak boleh menuntut apa-apa pembayaran caruman dari Persatuan.
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan – Permohonan membatalkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan – Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata – Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan mendedahkan kausa tindakan – Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh had masa – Sama ada penggabungan defendan-defendan tindakan betul bawah undang-undang – Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan mendedahkan maklumat jelas dan terperinci – Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan wajar dibatalkan – Sama ada tuntutan satu salah guna proses mahkamah – Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 19
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Res judicata – Pemakaian – Pihak menuntut pernah membuat tuntutan sama di Mahkamah Tinggi – Kes dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan – Pihak menuntut tidak pernah memohon agar kes yang dibatalkan disambung semula – Sama ada tuntutan baharu berdasarkan kausa tindakan dan fakta sama, terhadap pihak-pihak yang sama – Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata – Sama ada tuntutan satu salah guna proses mahkamah
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Kausa tindakan – Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja (‘KWSP’) – Lembaga KWSP menuntut terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela – Sama ada pertubuhan amal majikan Lembaga KWSP – Sama ada pekerja-pekerja sukarela menerima gaji dan upah daripada pertubuhan amal – Sama ada pertubuhan amal wajib membuat caruman KWSP – Sama ada Lembaga KWSP mempunyai kausa tindakan membuat tuntutan terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela – Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991, s. 2
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pihak-pihak – Gabungan – Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela – Pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela digabungkan sebagai defendan-defendan dalam satu tindakan – Sama ada fakta masa dan jumlah tuntutan terhadap setiap defendan sama – Sama ada tindakan menggabungkan defendan-defendan dibenarkan bawah undang-undang
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding – Writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan – Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela – Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan mendedahkan maklumat yang jelas dan terperinci – Sama ada butir-butir tuntutan lengkap – Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan wajar dibatalkan – Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 19
HAD MASA: Tuntutan – Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela – Sama ada tuntutan di dalam had masa – Sama ada Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 memperincikan pengecualian terhadap pemakaian mana-mana Akta berkaitan had masa – Sama ada Akta Had Masa 1953 terpakai – Sama ada terdapat kelewatan terlampau dalam memfailkan tuntutan – Sama ada doktrin laches terpakai – Sama ada tuntutan memprejudis pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela
Legal Network Series
|
TAN HUN ENG v. MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ MD JAMIL CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appellate intervention - Order for re-trial - Motor accident case - Appeal record merely contained silent evidence in form of photographs and sketch plan which were not helpful - Testimony of independent investigating inspector was not helpful - Trial judge failed to give weight to positive identification of vehicle that collided during accident - Absence of findings on defence - Whether decision as to liability must be made based on demeanour of parties seen at trial - Whether appropriate remedy would be to remit case to be re-tried by another judge
|
|
|
PP v. TEO CHEE KONG CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLA") - ss. 4, 53 - Prohibiting respondent from dealing with properties in Singapore - Investigations against respondent - Whether properties and accounts as listed relate to the commission of an offence under AMLA, s. 4(1) - Whether investigations of accounts by Singapore authorities rendered this application redundant |
|
|
TOW KONG LIANG & ORS v. FBO LAND (SETAPAK) SDN BHD TORT: Conspiracy - Conspiracy to defraud - Alleged fraudulent transfer of trust property - Knowing receipt - Whether common intention to defraud proven - Whether proper burden of proof in deciding conspiracy to commit fraud was beyond reasonable doubt or on balance of probabilities - Whether plaintiff had established defendants had knowingly received trust property and dishonestly assisted in alleged breach of trust - Whether defendants are liable for commission of knowing receipt - Whether defendants unjustly enriched
|
|
|
RAHIMAHANI KAMAL ABD NASIR lwn. PP LALULINTAS JALAN: Pemanduan secara berbahaya - Pemanduan yang mengakibatkan kematian - Kenderaan tertuduh memasuki laluan kenderaan si mati dari arah bertentangan setelah tertuduh memotong kenderaan lain dengan laju - Keadaan jalan yang mempunyai 2 garisan berkembar - Memotong ketika menaiki bukit di jalan yang berselekoh - Sama ada tertuduh memandu secara berbahaya yang menimbulkan risiko kepada pengguna jalan raya yang lain - Sama ada memandu secara berbahaya harus melibatkan kesilapan tertuduh yang menyebabkan keadaan berbahaya - Sama ada kenderaan tertuduh telah menceroboh laluan sah si mati sebelum kemalangan
|
|
|
MITTI CABLES MFG SDN BHD lwn. IDI SAIFUL ADHA ROSLAN KONTRAK: Representasi salah - Pembatalan - Kontrak kerja-kerja bagi membekal dan memasang lampu LED - Plaintif telah memberi jaminan kepada defendan bahawa pemasangan lampu LED akan membawa kepada penjimatan bil elektrik - Bil elektrik tidak turun seperti yang dijanjikan - Sama ada wujud silap representasi oleh plaintif kepada defendan - Sama ada defendan telah didorong oleh plaintif untuk bergantung terhadap representasi sebelum defendan memasuki perjanjian - Sama ada kontrak wajar dibatalkan - Akta Kontrak 1950, ss. 18, 19
|
CLJ 2019 Volume 8 (Part 4)
The applicability of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 should not be confined to interim claims as the Act does not mention the words ‘interim claim’ or ‘final claim’. As long as a payment claim is related to a construction contract as defined in s. 4, the Act would apply.
Martego Sdn Bhd v. Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2019] 8 CLJ 433 [FC]
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Appeal - Claim for professional architectural fees - Termination of contract - Adjudicator awarded award after construction contract had been terminated and termination accepted by parties - Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction - Whether Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') applied to claims in respect of architectural fees - Whether interim claim or final claim - Whether CIPAA only applies to interim payments and not final claims
Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Zainun Ali, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi, Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJJ
- For the appellant - M Nagarajah & Tanya Lopez; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
- For the respondent - Sivabalan Sankaran, Tharmini Paramasivan & Shaun Tan Cheng Hong; M/s Tan Swee Im, Siva & Partners
A detenu detained under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 is entitled to make representations to the Advisory Board either personally or through a representative; where such detenu is present before the Board but denied the right to be represented by counsel, he is effectively denied his entire right to make representations, and is thus entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and be released from detention.
Mohammad Azanul Haqimi Tuan Ahmad Azahari v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2019] 8 CLJ 465 [FC]
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Representation before Advisory Board - Right to be represented by counsel - Request for second adjournment refused - Advisory Board proceeded to hear applicant without counsel - Whether a serious procedural breach - Whether writ ought to be issued - Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss. 3 & 9
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Detention order - Detention under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Application for writ of habeas corpus - Representation by counsel at hearing of representation - Whether denied by Advisory Board - Conflict of evidence - Minutes of Board hearing - Whether material evidence - Refusal to disclose minutes to court - Whether a suppression of material evidence - Whether attracting adverse inference - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) - Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, ss. 3 & 9
David Wong Dak Wah CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Balia Yusof Wahi, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Abang Iskandar, Nallini Pathmanathan FCJJ
- For the appellant - Sivananthan Nithyanantham & Jay Moy Wei Jiun; M/s Sivananthan
- For the respondents - Muhammad Sinti; SFC
There is no requirement for a common field of activity in a claim for passing off. Likewise, proof of actual confusion is not necessary as mere proof of possibility of association is sufficient.
Dorpan, SL & Anor v. Nusajaya Sunrise Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 475 [HC]
TORT: Passing off - Trade mark - Claim by proprietor of trade mark against property developer - Whether trade mark confusingly or deceptively similar - Whether parties provided same goods or services - Whether there was passing off of proprietor's services by property developer - Trade Marks Act 1976, s. 70B
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade mark - Passing off - Proprietor of trade mark ran business of providing, operating and/or managing hotel services - Proprietor adopted trend of hotels venturing into 'condotels' - Property developer of residences used trade mark confusingly similar to proprietor's trade mark - Whether there was passing off of services provided by proprietor - Whether proprietor's mark only used in association with hotel services - Whether goodwill and reputation gained by proprietor attributable to residences - Trade Marks Act 1976, s. 70B
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade mark - Misrepresentation - Property developer of residences used trade mark similar to proprietor's trade mark - Whether there was passing off of services provided by proprietor - Whether word in trade mark invented word or merely English word - Whether distinctive to goods provided - Whether deceived or caused confusion to members of trade and public - Whether there was misappropriation of proprietor's goodwill and reputation - Whether there was misrepresentation - Whether there were damages - Trade Marks Act 1976, s. 70B - Trade Marks Regulations 1997, reg. 13B
See Mee Chun J
- For the plaintiff - Indran Shanmuganathan, Michelle Loi Choi Yoke & Yap Khai Jian; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the defendant - Lee Lin Li & & Shawn Voon; M/s Tay & Partners
A mark which is descriptive of the trader’s business or the geographical origin of its source of production cannot be inherently distinctive, and yet, may still be registrable if it is actually or factually distinctive in that the uninformed public can readily associate the mark with the trader’s product. Whether such actual or factual distinctiveness is attained is a pure question of facts provable, inter alia, by years of prior use and business resulting in the public associating the mark with the said trader’s product.
Korea Wallpaper Sdn Bhd v. Pendaftar Cap Dagangan [2019] 8 CLJ 513 [HC]
TRADE MARKS: Registration - Application for - Registrar rejected application for registration of trade mark - Whether application complied with s. 10(1) of Trade Marks Act 1976 - Whether mark inherently, actually or factually distinctive - Whether there was cogent evidence supporting applicant's claim of public association of its product with mark - Whether mark ought to be registered as distinctive mark pursuant to s. 10(1)(e) of Trade Marks Act 1976
Lim Chong Fong J
- For the plaintiff - Lee Kok Phong; M/s M Scully
- For the defendant - Mohamad Rahim Arafpin; Perbadanan Harta Intelek Malaysia
Sebagai pertubuhan amal yang tidak mengaut keuntungan dan didaftar di bawah Akta Pembangunan Sukan 1997, Persatuan Bola Sepak Kelantan bukan “association of persons” seperti yang dimaksud oleh s. 46 Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991, dan pemegang-pemegang jawatan Persatuan bukan “office bearers” seperti yang diperuntuk seksyen yang sama. Oleh itu, KWSP tiada apa-apa kausa tindakan terhadap Persatuan dan tidak boleh menuntut apa-apa pembayaran caruman dari Persatuan.
Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja lwn. Persatuan Bola Sepak Kelantan & Yang Lain [2019] 8 CLJ 527 [HC]
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Permohonan membatalkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan - Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata - Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan mendedahkan kausa tindakan - Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh had masa - Sama ada penggabungan defendan-defendan tindakan betul bawah undang-undang - Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan mendedahkan maklumat jelas dan terperinci - Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan wajar dibatalkan - Sama ada tuntutan satu salah guna proses mahkamah - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 19
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Res judicat - Pemakaian - Pihak menuntut pernah membuat tuntutan sama di Mahkamah Tinggi - Kes dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan - Pihak menuntut tidak pernah memohon agar kes yang dibatalkan disambung semula - Sama ada tuntutan baharu berdasarkan kausa tindakan dan fakta sama, terhadap pihak-pihak yang sama - Sama ada tuntutan terhalang oleh prinsip res judicata - Sama ada tuntutan satu salah guna proses mahkamah
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Kausa tindakan - Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja ('KWSP') - Lembaga KWSP menuntut terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela - Sama ada pertubuhan amal majikan Lembaga KWSP - Sama ada pekerja-pekerja sukarela menerima gaji dan upah daripada pertubuhan amal - Sama ada pertubuhan amal wajib membuat caruman KWSP - Sama ada Lembaga KWSP mempunyai kausa tindakan membuat tuntutan terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela - Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991, s. 2
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pihak-pihak - Gabungan - Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela - Pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela digabungkan sebagai defendan-defendan dalam satu tindakan - Sama ada fakta masa dan jumlah tuntutan terhadap setiap defendan sama - Sama ada tindakan menggabungkan defendan-defendan dibenarkan bawah undang-undang
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding - Writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan - Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela - Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan mendedahkan maklumat yang jelas dan terperinci - Sama ada butir-butir tuntutan lengkap - Sama ada writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan wajar dibatalkan - Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 19
HAD MASA: Tuntutan - Tuntutan tunggakan caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja terhadap pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela - Sama ada tuntutan di dalam had masa - Sama ada Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 memperincikan pengecualian terhadap pemakaian mana-mana Akta berkaitan had masa - Sama ada Akta Had Masa 1953 terpakai - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan terlampau dalam memfailkan tuntutan - Sama ada doktrin laches terpakai - Sama ada tuntutan memprejudis pertubuhan amal dan pekerja-pekerja sukarela
Ahmad Bache H
- Bagi pihak plaintif - T/n Azrul Afifi & Azman
- Bagi pihak responden 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 - T/n Irmohizam, Rosley & Nik Adli
- Bagi pihak responden 3 - Wan Jawahir & Encik Khuzaimi; T/n Wan Jawahir & Takiyuddin
In considering the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, the court, after undertaking a careful comparison of the entire factual matrix of the case, will determine whether the present action is in fact a repetition or a new guise of the cause of earlier proceedings.
Stesyen Minyak Kuala Nerus Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Khairul Anuar Muda & Ors [2019] 8 CLJ 547 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out writ and statement of claim - Company commenced suit against defendants - Whether there was written resolution to commence suit - Whether all directors of company authorised commencement of suit - Whether resolution issued valid - Whether company had necessary locus standi to commence suit against defendants - Whether suit abuse of court process - Whether suit ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) & (d)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Action - Company commenced suit against defendants - Issue raised in present court same as issue raised in previous court - Whether both suits arose from same set of facts, background, issues, circumstances and cause of action - Whether issue raised in present court already decided in previous court - Whether principle of res judicata applied - Whether company estopped from raising same issue - Whether abuse of court process - Whether suit in present court ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) & (d)
Abdul Wahab Mohamed JC
- For the plaintiffs - M/s WA Wan Adnan & Assocs
- For the defendants - M/s Nordin Kassim & Aziz
In assessing compensatory damages where infringement of intellectual property has been established, the evidential burden on loss of business profits caused by the sale of the infringing products is to be discharged by the plaintiff and measured against the “but for” test. Although an accountant’s expert opinion is not required by law, nonetheless, expert opinion on EBITA (earnings before interest, tax and amortization) may be considered by the court in determining the basis for the loss of profits.
Syarikat Faiza Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Faiz Rice Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Suit [2019] 8 CLJ 564 [HC]
TORT: Damages - Compensatory and non-compensatory - Assessment - Copyright infringement offences - Defendants found liable to plaintiffs for copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, tort of passing off and tort of unlawful interference - Whether plaintiffs' loss of business profits caused by sales of infringing products - Whether expert evidence by accountant required under s. 45(1) of Evidence Act 1950 and O. 40A rr. 1 to 3 Rules of Court 2012 - Whether court should accept Average EBITA Margin or Actual EBITA Margin in assessing damages - Loss of plaintiffs' goodwill - Whether infringement of commercial nature - Whether defendant acted in bad faith - Whether statutory, additional, exemplary and aggravated damages allowed - Copyright Act 1987, s. 37
Wong Kian Kheong J
- For the plaintiffs - Kuek Pei Yee, Alyshea Low Khye Lyn & Gooi Yang Shuh; M/s Skrine
- For the defendants - Michael Soo Chow Ming, Wendy Lee Wan Chieh & Loo Wai Hoong; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
LNS Article(s)
LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL TO EXPUNGE A REGISTERED TRADEMARK
A CASE NOTE* [Read excerpt]
by PRAVIND CHANDRA [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxiiTHE POTENTIAL OF WHATSAPP AS A MEDIUM OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE IN THE NIGERIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM [Read excerpt]
by RILWAN F. MAHMOUD* [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxiii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 813 | Departure Levy Act 2019 | 1 August 2019 - Part I, Part II, Part IV, section 17, section 18, section 31, Part VII, Part VIII except for section 37, Part IX, Part X and Part XI to the Act; 1 September 2019 - Part III, Part V except for sections 17 and 18, Part VI except for section 31, and section 37 to the Act [PU(B) 373/2019] | - |
| 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 A1603 | Youth Societies and Youth Development (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 668 |
| ACT A1601 | Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 317 |
| ACT A1600 | Peaceful Assembly (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 736 |
| ACT A1599 | Revision of Laws (Amendment) Act 2019 | 1 August 2019 | ACT 1 |
| ACT A1598 | Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 599 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 224/2019 | Financial Services (Exemption) Order 2019 | 21 August 2019 | 25 March 2019 | ACT 758 |
| PU(A) 223/2019 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 28) Order 2019 | 16 August 2019 | 17 August 2019 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 222/2019 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 27) Order 2019 [revoked by PU(A) 223/2019] | 9 August 2019 | 10 August 2019 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 221/2019 | Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 3) Order 2019 | 8 August 2019 | 14 August 2019 | ACT 333 |
| PU(A) 220/2019 | Timber Cess (Amendment) Order 2019 | 5 August 2019 | 6 August 2019 - Peninsular Malaysia only | PU(A) 56/2000 |
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 56/2000 | Timber Cess Order 2000 | PU(A) 220/2019 | 6 August 2019 - Peninsular Malaysia only | Schedule |
| ACT 366 | Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989) | PU(A) 207/2019 | 26 July 2019 | First Schedule |
| ACT 366 | Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989) | PU(A) 202/2019 | 24 July 2019 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 132/2019 | Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2019 | PU(A) 203/2019 | 10 May 2018 - subparagraph 2(a); 21 May 2018 - subparagraph 2(b); 8 May 2019 - subparagraphs 2(c) and 2(d) | Schedule |
| PU(A) 381/2016 | Employees Provident Fund (Fund Management Institution) Regulations 2016 | PU(A) 200/2019 | 1 August 2019 | Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 248/2014 | Customs Duties (Goods Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Between Asean and China) (Asean Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature) Order 2014 | PU(A) 212/2019 | 1 August 2019 |
| PU(B) 11/2016 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Federal Lands Commissioner | PU(B) 332/2019 | 10 July 2019 |
| 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 |