|
Issue #38/2019
19 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
|
C VIGNESH KUMAR CHELLAPAH & ANOR v. PP [2019] 8 CLJ 591
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHTARUDIN BAKI JCA, RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA, MOHAMAD ZABIDIN DIAH JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: W-05-221-04-2018]
19 JULY 2019
A decision of the High Court directing an appellant to file a particular application in the Sessions Court instead of in the High Court cannot be said to have finally disposed of the rights of the appellant vis-a-vis the relief sought for therein. Consequently, no appeal shall lie against such decision.
CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 – Section 61 – Appellants applied to be at liberty to attend before court to show why property should not be forfeited and to be declared as bona fide third parties – High Court Judge dismissed application on grounds that it should be made in Sessions Court – Appellants appealed agains tHigh Court decision – Preliminary objections raised – Whether appeal competent – Whether appeal academic – Whether appellants’ rights to be heard by all three tiers of court preserved
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Competency of – Appeal against High Court Judge’s decision in dismissing appellants’ application to be at liberty to attend before court to show why property should not be forfeited and to be declared as bona fide third parties – Whether order of High Court Judge was only to direct application be filed in Sessions Court – Whether there was final determination of appellants’ rights – Whether appeal academic – Whether appellants’ rights to be heard by all three tiers of court preserved – Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s. 61
-
Lau Shui Jimg v. PP [2018] 1 LNS 1844 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Lau Shui Jimg [Criminal Case No: TWU-45A-5/10-2015]
-
Emmanuel Kamano v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 576 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Emmanuel Kamano [Criminal Trial No: 45A-6-1/2016]
Legal Network Series
|
AFFLUENT TRADE LANDMARK SDN BHD v. EMINENT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Premature claim - Action against directors and secretary of company - Claim over shares of company incorporated outside Malaysia - Plaintiff waited 16 years to file action - Failure to plead sufficient facts - Whether a party could rely on any combination of grounds for application for striking out - Whether action disclosed reasonable cause of action - Whether plaintiff adopted a lackadaisical attitude towards enforcing its claim - Whether an abuse of court process for plaintiff to initiate an action in a Malaysian Court concerning company incorporated outside Malaysia - Whether action was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious
|
|
|
SINGHAM SULAIMAN SDN BHD v. APPRAISAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure to adduce any evidence to rebut evidence - Whether court may draw an adverse inference - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) EVIDENCE: Judge - Power to put questions or order production - Application made during cross-examination - Whether documents were relevant to case - Whether application was a fishing expedition - Whether application was filed with a collateral purpose and an abuse of court process EVIDENCE: Admissions - Email written without prejudice - Contents of email did not suggest any inference as to any fact in issue - Whether email amounted to an admission within meaning of s. 17(1) Evidence Act 1950 COMPANY LAW: Lifting of corporate veil - Power of court - Lifting of corporate veil of a group of companies to reveal a single entity controlling all relevant companies - Alter ego - Whether court's power regarding lifting of corporate veil for group of companies should be same as that for an individual TORT: Passing off - Trade marks - Real estate services - Goodwill - Whether SSSB was owner of goodwill in its real estate business regarding use of Jones Lang Wootton ('JLW') Marks - Whether The London Proprietors, Pacific Proprietors, JLWP and JLWL could claim any goodwill in any real estate business with respect to JLW Marks - Whether there was likelihood of damage to goodwill attached to plaintiff's business caused by defendant's misrepresentation INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Registered trade mark - Expungement - Whether original registration of Jones Lang Wootton registered trade mark obtained by fraud on registrar - Whether court could expunge registered trade mark pursuant to s. 37(a) Trade Marks Act 1976
|
|
|
MUHAMMAD FAIZAL SALIM v. PP CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - s. 302 - Murder - Whether there was intention to commit murder - Injuries inflicted by accused on deceased using bare hands - Whether no weapon used showed absence of intention - Whether bringing victim to hospital established lack of intention to commit murder
|
|
|
MUHAMMAD KHAIDZIR LUCMAN lwn. PP PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghakiman - Pengenepian - Permohonan mengenepikan perintah pembatalan rayuan - Bidang kuasa mahkamah - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar permohonan bagi mengenepikan perintah pembatalan rayuan - Sama ada Mahkamah telah functus officio - Sama ada status kes telah berakhir apabila Mahkamah menguatkuasakan hukuman ke atas pemohon - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk meminda perintah menurut s. 278 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah
|
|
|
ROSLEE GHAZALI & SATU LAGI lwn. BORHANUDIN HASSAN & SATU LAGI LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Perlanggaran antara motosikal dan motolori - Kemalangan maut - Penentuan liabiliti - Kemalangan di persimpangan jalan - Motolori melanggar motosikal dari belakang secara laju dan tiba-tiba - Kerosakan keseluruhan motosikal - Sama ada pemandu motolori adalah cuai di dalam mengendalikan motolorinya - Sama ada pemandu motolori adalah bertanggungan 100% GANTI RUGI: Kehilangan tanggungan - Tuntutan kemalangan maut - Tuntutan kehilangan tanggungan untuk ahli keluarga lain selain suami, isteri, ibu bapa dan anak - Sama ada ibu bapa boleh menuntut kehilangan tanggungan untuk kegunaan adik-beradik dan ahli keluarga lain - Sama ada perbelanjaan terhadap persekolahan adik-adik si mati wajar ditolak daripada jumlah kehilangan tanggungan ibu bapa - Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956, s. 7(2)
|
CLJ 2019 Volume 8 (Part 5)
A decision of the High Court directing an appellant to file a particular application in the Sessions Court instead of in the High Court cannot be said to have finally disposed of the rights of the appellant vis-a-vis the relief sought for therein. Consequently, no appeal shall lie against such decision.
C Vignesh Kumar Chellapah & Anor v. PP [2019] 8 CLJ 591 [CA]
CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Section 61 - Appellants applied to be at liberty to attend before court to show why property should not be forfeited and to be declared as bona fide third parties - High Court Judge dismissed application on grounds that it should be made in Sessions Court - Appellants appealed against High Court decision - Preliminary objections raised - Whether appeal competent - Whether appeal academic - Whether appellants' rights to be heard by all three tiers of court preserved
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Competency of - Appeal against High Court Judge's decision in dismissing appellants' application to be at liberty to attend before court to show why property should not be forfeited and to be declared as bona fide third parties - Whether order of High Court Judge was only to direct application be filed in Sessions Court - Whether there was final determination of appellants' rights - Whether appeal academic - Whether appellants' rights to be heard by all three tiers of court preserved - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s. 61
Mohtarudin Baki, Rhodzariah Bujang, Mohamad Zabidin Diah JJCA
- For the appellant - PG Cyril & Daniel Annamalai N Subramaniam; M/s Vignesh Kumar & Assocs
- For the respondent - Tetralina Ahmd Fauzi; DPP
Native customary rights cannot be sold, transferred or assigned for valuable consideration. Hence, where native customary land is sold for valuable consideration, the purchaser is not entitled to possession of the land as it runs foul of the adat tungkus asi; more so when the transferee is a non-native.
Jeli Naga & Ors v. Tung Huat Pelita Niah Plantation Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal [2019] 8 CLJ 598 [CA]
LAND LAW: Customary land - Native customary rights ('NCR') - Alienation - Whether natives acquired or inherited NCR over land - Whether NCR restricted only to cultivated areas - NCR cannot be sold, transferred or assigned for valuable consideration - Sale of native customary land to non-natives - Whether natives relinquished rights over land - Whether purchaser entitled to possession of land - Whether ran foul of adat tungkus asi - Whether sale illegal
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Zaleha Yusof, Ab Karim Ab Jalil JJCA
- For the appellants - Baru Bian & Joshua Baru; M/s Baru Bian Assocs
- For the 1st & 3rd respondents - Rajesh Jethi; M/s Jethi & Assocs
- For the 2nd & 4th respondents - Mohd Adzrul Adzlan; State Senior Legal Advisor, Sarawak
The Bar Council, as the complainant in a disciplinary proceeding, shoulders the burden of proving that an advocate and solicitor who is the subject of a complaint of professional misconduct, is guilty of the alleged misconduct. The standard of proof required in such disciplinary proceeding is beyond reasonable doubt.
Majlis Peguam Malaysia v. Ajmain Abd Rahim [2019] 8 CLJ 614 [CA]
LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings - Professional misconduct - Standard of proof - Allegation that advocate and solicitor misappropriated client's money in legal firm's client's account - Disciplinary Committee found advocate and solicitor guilty and Disciplinary Board struck his name off Roll of Advocates and Solicitors - Standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings concerning professional misconduct - Whether beyond reasonable doubt - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 94(2)
EVIDENCE: Standard of proof - Legal profession - Allegation that advocate and solicitor misappropriated client's money in legal firm's client's account - Disciplinary Committee found advocate and solicitor guilty and Disciplinary Board struck his name off Roll of Advocates and Solicitors - Standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings concerning professional misconduct - Whether beyond reasonable doubt
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Mary Lim, Hanipah Farikullah JJCA
- For the appellant - Lai Chee Hoe & Phan Yit Leng; M/s Chee Hoe & Assocs
- For the respondent - Adnan Seman; M/s Adnan Sharida & Assocs
Confidentiality per se cannot be a ground for refusing discovery of a document; discovery may be allowed if the disclosure of the document is required for the fair disposal of the proceedings, subject to appropriate safeguards.
Obnet Sdn Bhd v. Telekom Malaysia Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 628 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Confidential documents - Whether confidentiality a ground to resist discovery - Whether documents necessary for fair disposal of proceedings - Whether disclosure of documents would involve breach of confidence - Whether disclosure warranted by demands of justice - Whether disclosure through court order permissible
ARBITRATION: Arbitration tribunal - Jurisdiction - Arbitration proceedings - Application for discovery of documents in relation to earlier court proceedings - Arbitrator refused disclosure - Whether confidentiality a ground to resist discovery - Whether documents necessary for fair disposal of proceedings - Whether disclosure of documents would involve breach of confidence - Whether disclosure warranted by demands of justice - Whether disclosure through court order permissible - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 11
Rohana Yusuf, Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA
- For the appellant - S Murthi & Ahmad Hanafi Lop Ahmad; M/s S Murthi & Assocs
- For the respondent - G Vijay Kumay & Chan Mun Yew; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
In claiming for arrears of an electricity bill, the back-billing for the shortfall of a Tenaga Nasional Berhad consumer account under the proviso to reg. 11(2) of the Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 is limited to a retrospective adjustment not exceeding three months from the date the consumer was notified of the arrears.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 642 [CA]
UTILITIES: Electric - Claim for arrears - Discovery of inconsistency at substation meter - Inconsistency caused incorrect recording of use of electricity at consumer's premises - Electricity provider sent notice for sum in arrears in electricity bill - Back-billing for undercharge of consumer's electricity consumption - How sum in arrears calculated and arrived at - Whether should be calculated from when inspection at consumer's premises took place and consumer being informed of defect - Whether electricity provider, as licensee, may recover from consumer, charges due to licensee - Licensee Supply Regulations 1990, regs. 3(1) & 11(2)
WORDS AND PHRASES: 'From the date the consumer has been undercharged' - Interpretation of - Whether to be interpreted to relate to date when inspection took place and consumer informed of defect - Back-billing for undercharge of electricity consumption - How sum in arrears calculated and arrived at - Licensee Supply Regulations 1990, regs. 3(1) & 11(2)
Abang Iskandar, Suraya Othman, Yeoh Wee Siam JJCA
- For the appellant - Hadi Mukhlis; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
- For the respondent - Kumar & Moses Susayan; M/s Raja Badrol, Ramli & Azizi
The court has a wide discretion to award costs for interpleader proceedings under O. 17 r. 8 of the Rules of Court 2012. And even if interpleader was rightly filed by a plaintiff, in exceptional circumstances, the court may still deprive such plaintiff of the costs of proceedings.
Excel Champ Automobile Sdn Bhd v. Bermaz Motor Trading Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] 8 CLJ 650 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interpleader - Costs - Dealership agreement for sale of cars between distributor and plaintiff company - Sale financed by banking facilities and repayment secured by debenture - Floating charges created over assets of plaintiff - Plaintiff defaulted in repayment of facility - Court's discretion to award costs - Whether plaintiff's breaches caused losses to distributor and bank - Whether plaintiff may be deprived of costs of proceedings - Whether plaintiff could be ordered to pay costs to distributor and bank - Rules of Court 2012, O. 17 r. 8
Wong Kian Kheong J
- For the plaintiff - Tan Yen Ning; M/s Foo Hiap Siong & Co
- For the 1st defendant - Vasanthi Sathasivam & Subathra KS Nathan; M/s K Sugu & Assocs
- For the 2nd defendant - Wan Azhab Wan Din & Baba Hadil Baba Zain; M/s Azam, Baba & Aqmar
An insurer who obtains a declaratory order against the insured pursuant to s. 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 is obligated to serve the order personally on the insured as per the strict requirements of s. 96(3) read with s. 118 of the Act. Serving such order on the insured's solicitors is insufficient and incapable of averting or warding off an application to declare the order a nullity.
Mohamad Hairi Mohamad Isa v. Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 668 [HC]
ROAD TRAFFIC: Insurance - Notice of proceedings - Motor-vehicle accident - Plaintiff obtained judgment against other motorcyclist - Insurer of other motorcyclist obtained declaration that motor-vehicle policy void and unenforceable - Whether notice of proceedings served on plaintiff - Whether service on plaintiff's solicitors imputed 'knowledge' on plaintiff - Whether service on plaintiff's solicitors contravened written law - Whether requirement for service on plaintiff affected substantive rights - Whether declaratory order null and void - Road Transport Act 1987, ss. 96(1), (3) & 118
S Nantha Balan J
- For the plaintiff - Harjinder Singh; M/s G Dorai & Co
- For the defendant - R Ratha; M/s SG Lingam & Co
The Muslim prayer dress (‘Telekung’) sold by the plaintiff was not purely functional so as to be disentitled to copyright under s. 7(2A) of the Copyright Act 1987. The objective similarity showed that the defendant’s Telekung had directly copied an identifiable part of the plaintiff’s Telekung which constituted a substantial part of the plaintiff’s Telekung, and therefore, the defendant’s lack of knowledge of the plaintiff’s copyright was not a defence to copyright infringement.
Siti Khadijah Apparel Sdn Bhd v. Ariani Textiles & Manufacturing (M) Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 695 [HC]
COPYRIGHT: Infringement - Allegation of - Muslim prayer outfit ('telekung') - Whether a telekung constituted a 'graphic work' or a 'work of artistic craftsmanship' within the meaning of s. 3 of the Copyright Act 1987 - Whether plaintiff owned copyright of telekung design - Defendant's failure to adduce evidence of drawings and designs - Whether adverse inference invoked against defendant under s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 - Whether there was infringement of copyright - Copyright Act 1987, ss. 3 & 7
Wong Kian Kheong J
- For the plaintiff - Ahmad Hafiz Zubir & Nasrul Hadi Mat Saad; M/s Hafiz Zubir & Co
- For the defendant - Habizan Rahman Habeeb Rahman, Foong Cheng Leong & Theivini Nayagam; M/s Rahman Rohaida
A universal succession, pursuant to a merger, is a form of transmission by operation of law whereby the successor company assumes all rights and liabilities of the preceding company resulting in an automatic devolution of title; that being the case, share transfer documents are not required. The requirement of an instrument of transfer, by the wording of s. 105(1) and s. 105(4) of the Companies Act 2016, only applies to transfer of shares and not a transmission by operation of law.
United Renewable Energy Co Ltd v. TS Solartech Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 CLJ 721 [HC]
COMPANY LAW: Shares - Transmission of shares - Merger of companies - Passing of title of shares held by preceding company to succeeding company - Succeeding company requested to be registered as shareholder of company in respect of ordinary shares - Company refused to recognise passing of title of shares held by preceding company to succeeding company - Whether merger carried transmission of shares to succeeding company by operation of law - Whether transmission of shares ought to be registered - Whether register of members ought to be rectified - Whether succeeding company must execute share transfer form and Board resolution approving share transfer - Difference between transmission of shares and transfer of shares - Doctrine of universal succession - Companies Act 2016, ss. 103, 105(1), (4) & 109(1)
Ong Chee Kwan JC
- For the plaintiff - Lee Shih & Joyce Lim Hwee Yin; M/s Skrine
- For the defendant - Khoo Kay Ping & Louis Chong; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co
LNS Article(s)
A MUCH-NEGLECTED ASPECT OF THE THEORY OF MAQASID - THE WASA'IL* [Read excerpt]
by MOHAMMAD HASHIM KAMALI [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxivINNOVATIVE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT IN NIGERIA REVISITED:A REFORM TOWARDS ENTRENCHING PEACEFUL RESOLUTION [Read excerpt]
by Ayinla L.A.* Abdulrasaq F.F.** [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxv
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 | Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 000 |
| 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 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 229/2019 | Factories and Machinery (Exemption to Malaysian Refining Company Sdn. Bhd., Sungai Udang, Malacca) Order 2019 | 26 August 2019 | 27 August 2019 | ACT 139 |
| PU(A) 228/2019 | Customs (Prohibition of Imports) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2019 | 26 August 2019 | 1 November 2019 | PU(A) 103/2017 |
| PU(A) 227/2019 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 29) Order 2019 | 23 August 2019 | 24 August 2019 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 226/2019 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) Order 2019 | 23 August 2019 | Year of assessment 2018 until the year of assessment 2020 | ACT 53 |
| PU(A) 225/2019 | Federal Constitution (Delimitation of Constituencies) (State of Sabah) Order 2019 | 22 August 2019 | 22 August 2019 | ACT 000 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 426/2019 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 30 August 2019 | 31 August 2019 | ACT A1597 |
| PU(B) 425/2019 | Revocation of Reservation of Land for Public Purpose | 30 August 2019 | 31 August 2019 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 424/2019 | Notice to Third Parties | 30 August 2019 | 31 August 2019 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 423/2019 | Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 | 30 August 2019 | 1 September 2019 to 30 September 2019 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 422/2019 | Appointment Under Section 3 | 29 August 2019 | Specified in column (3) of the Schedule | ACT 341 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| ACT 807 | Service Tax Act 2018 | ACT A1597 | 1 September 2019 [PU(B) 426/2019] - para. 3(b), s. 4, 5 and 6, paras. 16(a), (b) and (c), paras. 21(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), s. 22, 23, 24 and 27, para. 28(a), s. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 49, and para. 50(a); 1 October 2019 [PU(B) 426/2019] - s. 2, paras. 3(c), (e) and (f), s. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, para. 16(d), s. 17, 18, 19 and 20, para. 21(f), s. 25 and 26, para. 28(b), s. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48, para. 50(b), (c) and (d), s. 51 and 52; 1 January 2020 [PU(B) 426/2019] - section 37. | Sections 1A, 2, 9 - 26, 26A, 27, 27A, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 - 36, 39, 40, 40A, 46A, 51A, Part IXA, Sections 65, 68, 69A, 71, 75, 76, 81 - 84, 86, 86A and 91 |
| 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 |
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 |