|
Issue #43/2019
24 October 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
|
DAUD ARSHAD & ORS v. FELCRA BHD [2019] 9 CLJ 443
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT JCA; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN JCA; SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: J-02(NCVC)(W)-1304-07-2016]
28 DECEMBER 2018
An application under O. 33 rr. 2 & 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (disposing a cause without a normal trial to save time and costs) can be made by a party even when the trial has proceeded to an advanced stage. And since the law allows such an application, the issues of bad faith or delay can rarely feature to defeat the application.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Proceedings - Disposal of case on point of law - Questions posed to court for determination - Trial proceeded to advanced stage - Whether application may be made before, during or after trial - Whether application made in bad faith - Whether entire matter could be disposed of and parties spared from rigmarole of trial process - Whether application resulted in substantial saving of time and expenditure - Whether claim involved disputed facts - Whether suit barred by limitation - Doctrine of estoppel - Whether applicable - Dayapi Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Berhad & Anor - Rules of Court 2012, O. 33 rr. 2 & 5
PP v. JULIUS CHRISTO KATZKE [2019] 9 CLJ 459
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AHMADI ASNAWI JCA; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI JCA; KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: K-05(LB)-264-06-2017]
18 JUNE 2019
In charges of trafficking in firearms under s. 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1971 and possession of ammunition under s. 8(a) of the Arms Act 1960 respectively, it is wrong for the trial judge to require the prosecution to prove "exclusive possession" of the offending materials. To say that the prosecution must fail because there was no proof of "exclusive possession" of the firearms and ammunition, would convey the wrong impression that it is only in cases where possession is entirely with one person - that is "exclusive" - that a conviction is possible.
CRIMINAL LAW: Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 - Section 7(1) - Trafficking - Possession and knowledge - Firearms found onboard a yacht - Accused produced documents containing identification and registration details of firearms - Whether possession of documents rebutted accused's claim that he had no knowledge of firearms - Accused's bare assertion that firearms brought onboard by unknown persons - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether accused proved to have possession and knowledge of firearms
CRIMINAL LAW: Arms Act 1960 - Section 8(a) - Possession of ammunition without lawful authority - Ammunition found onboard a yacht - Accused produced documents containing identification and registration details of ammunition - Whether possession of documents rebutted accused's claim that he had no knowledge of ammunition - Accused's bare assertion that ammunition brought onboard by unknown persons - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether accused proved to have possession and knowledge of ammunition
-
Redmax Sdn Bhd v. PSI Incontrol Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 1271 (CA) overruling the High Court case of PSI Incontrol Sdn Bhd v. Redmax Sdn Bhd [2016] 1 LNS 1755
-
Amarnath Subramaniam v. BSN Commercial Bank Berhad [2018] 1 LNS 2001 (CA) affirming the High Court case of BSN Commercial Bank Berhad v. Shamkor Rubber Products Sdn Bhd & Ors [Civil Suit No: D4-21-4-1997]
Legal Network Series
|
PERBADANAN PEMBANGUNAN PULAU PINANG v. PACIFIC HYPERMARKET & DEPARTMENTAL STORE SDN BHD LANDLORD AND TENANT: Tenancy agreement - Termination - Unilateral termination - Validity of termination - Deliberate use of premises for unlicensed business - Whether unlawful use of premises rendered tenancy agreement void ab initio - Whether breach of tenancy agreement on use of premises warrant a notice to remedy
|
|
|
PP lwn. ALIAS MD YUSOF PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap perintah pelepasan dan pembebasan - Pertuduhan rasuah - Rakaman video yang menggambarkan perbualan antara tertuduh dan agent provocateur dikemukakan di mahkamah sebagai keterangan - Perbualan dalam rakaman video tidak jelas - Penyandaran kepada keterangan agent provocateur - Sama ada terdapat kemungkinan keterangan agent provocateur ditokok tambah - Sama ada penjelasan yang diberikan oleh tertuduh telah berjaya membangkitkan keraguan yang munasabah untuk menolak anggapan di bawah s. 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 KETERANGAN: Agent provocateur - Kebolehterimaan - Sama ada keterangan agent provocateur memerlukan keterangan sokongan - Sama ada keterangan provocateur boleh diterima bulat-bulat - Sama ada keterangan agent provocateur memerlukan penelitian yang mendalam oleh pihak mahkamah
|
|
|
LIM THIAN HUAT & ANOR v. MBF HOLDINGS BERHAD & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Preliminary issues - Determination through an application under O. 33 r. 2 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Res judicata - Existence of earlier application for an order under O. 14A of ROC to determine preliminary questions - Application under O. 14A was held to be unsuitable mode to determine preliminary questions - Whether subsequent application under O. 33 r. 2 was barred by res judicata - Whether an application under O. 14A is intrinsically different from O. 33 r. 2 - Whether parties are barred from pursuing matter by way of summary trial pursuant to O. 33 r. 2 - Whether O. 33 r. 2 confers court wide powers to direct trial of preliminary issues
|
|
|
MOGANAN THREMALLI v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Preventive detention - Detention under s. 19A(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Allegation of uncertainty on arrest of applicant - Inquiry officer took 9 days before conducted an inquiry - Whether uncertainty of who arrested applicant rendered process of issuing detention order defective - Whether 9 days taken by inquiry officer amounted to a procedural non-compliance - Whether reasons afforded by inquiry officer was reasonable
|
|
|
AECB INCORPORATED SDN BHD lwn. ACU BUILDERS SDN BHD PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan terhadap penolakan permohonan interlokutori - Permohonan untuk membatalkan writ dan penyata tuntutan di bawah A. 18 k. 19(1)(b), (c) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada tindakan plaintif difailkan melebihi had masa di bawah s. 6(1)(a) Akta Had Masa 1953 - Kegagalan untuk memplidkan surat yang material dalam penyata tuntutan
|
CLJ 2019 Volume 9 (Part 4)
An application under O. 33 rr. 2 & 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (disposing a cause without a normal trial to save time and costs) can be made by a party even when the trial has proceeded to an advanced stage. And since the law allows such an application, the issues of bad faith or delay can rarely feature to defeat the application.
Daud Arshad & Ors v. FELCRA Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 443 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Proceedings - Disposal of case on point of law - Questions posed to court for determination - Trial proceeded to advanced stage - Whether application may be made before, during or after trial - Whether application made in bad faith - Whether entire matter could be disposed of and parties spared from rigmarole of trial process - Whether application resulted in substantial saving of time and expenditure - Whether claim involved disputed facts - Whether suit barred by limitation - Doctrine of estoppel - Whether applicable - Dayapi Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Berhad & Anor - Rules of Court 2012, O. 33 rr. 2 & 5
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Nallini Pathmanathan, Suraya Othman JJCA
- For the appellants - Bernard George & Mathews George; M/s Tay, Bernard & Cheong
- For the respondent - Helmi Hamzah & Mohd Rosly Khady; M/s Hisham Sobri & Kadir
In charges of trafficking in firearms under s. 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1971 and possession of ammunition under s. 8(a) of the Arms Act 1960 respectively, it is wrong for the trial judge to require the prosecution to prove "exclusive possession" of the offending materials. To say that the prosecution must fail because there was no proof of "exclusive possession" of the firearms and ammunition, would convey the wrong impression that it is only in cases where possession is entirely with one person - that is "exclusive" - that a conviction is possible.
PP v. Julius Christo Katzke [2019] 9 CLJ 459 [CA]
CRIMINAL LAW: Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 - Section 7(1) - Trafficking - Possession and knowledge - Firearms found onboard a yacht - Accused produced documents containing identification and registration details of firearms - Whether possession of documents rebutted accused's claim that he had no knowledge of firearms - Accused's bare assertion that firearms brought onboard by unknown persons - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether accused proved to have possession and knowledge of firearms
CRIMINAL LAW: Arms Act 1960 - Section 8(a) - Possession of ammunition without lawful authority - Ammunition found onboard a yacht - Accused produced documents containing identification and registration details of ammunition - Whether possession of documents rebutted accused's claim that he had no knowledge of ammunition - Accused's bare assertion that ammunition brought onboard by unknown persons - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether accused proved to have possession and knowledge of ammunition
Ahmadi Asnawi, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Kamardin Hashim JJCA
- For the prosecution - Hanim Mohd Rashid; DPP
- For the respondent - PG Cyril & Gurmit Singh Hullon; M/s Vignesh Kumar & Assocs
In a derivative action, the issue of locus standi , being a threshold issue, must be decided as a preliminary point and it is on the plaintiff to establish prima facie that it is entitled to bring such action. Where a plaintiff has failed to establish the wrongdoers had prevented any action from being taken against them and has further failed to specifically name those wrongdoers, an application for a derivative action is unsustainable and must, without more, fail.
Tai May Chean v. New Way Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2019] 9 CLJ 477 [CA]
COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Locus standi - Allegation of wrongdoing committed against company - Shareholder commenced action against shareholders and company in representative capacity - Whether shareholder had required locus standi - Whether threshold of locus standi fulfilled - Whether company itself unable to sue because wrongdoers were in control of decision-making organs - Whether wrongdoers would not permit action to be brought in name of company - Whether all wrongdoers and company cited as defendants
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Multiplicity of proceedings - Shareholder commenced derivative action by way of originating summons - Other shareholder commenced proceedings for misuse of funds, together with counterclaim, prior to originating summons - Whether there was multiplicity of proceedings - Whether res judicata applied
Rohana Yusuf, Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA
- For the appellants in both appeals - David Mathews, Harvinderjit Singh, Sara Ann Chay, Malarvily Perumal & Barry Goh; M/s Vin Law Co
- For the respondent in Appeal 561-03-2017 - P Gananathan & Yeoh Kai Ying; M/s Gananathan Loh
- For the respondent in Appeal 562-03-2017 - Robert Low & Karen Yong; M/s Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low
An action filed more than 12 years after the discovery of an alleged fraudulent land transfer executed 50 years ago is time-barred and unsustainable, more so when no cogent reasons are pleaded explaining the inordinate delay nor sufficient particularisation provided on the issue of fraud; A claim that a constructive trust arose cannot be maintained if the proper methodology to prove forgery is not applied.
Tung Kean Hin & Anor v. Yuen Heng Phong [2019] 9 CLJ 493 [CA]
LAND LAW: Transfer - Fraud - Allegation of - Whether established - Action filed more than 12 years from date of accrual of right of action - Failure to commence action upon discovery of purported fraud - Whether claim statute-barred - Whether particulars of fraud specifically pleaded - Whether non-particularisation of allegation of fraud fatal to plaintiff's case - Allegation that signature on documents forged - Whether comparison of signature made with genuine signature - Whether authorship of specimen signature sufficiently verified
LIMITATION: Fraud - Discovery of fraud - Fraud discovered more than 50 years ago - Action filed more than 12 years from date of accrual of right of action - Failure to commence action upon discovery of purported fraud - Whether claim statute-barred
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim JJCA
- For the appellants - Tan Swee Cheng & Stephen Chua; M/s Wong & Loh
- For the respondent - Lee Khai & Teh Chiew Yin; M/s Ong And Maneksha
The scope of an ad hoc admission Order granted to counsel from West Malaysia to practice in Sabah as counsel for a client in the State in an appeal at the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 10(c) of the Advocates Ordinance (Sabah Cap 2) is limited to such appeal and subsequent related proceedings in the Federal Court, if any. The Order is not a blanket approval for counsel to act in unrelated cases for the client, and in any case, does not permit him to act in a full trial of the suit if it is remitted back to the High Court.
Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (FELDA) v. Asrafal Hj Alian & Ors [2019] 9 CLJ 521 [HC]
LEGAL PROFESSION: Admission - Ad hoc - Appearance of counsel - Preliminary objection against appearance of counsel representing plaintiff in suit - Plaintiff's application for ad hoc admission to enable counsel to practise in Sabah and to act as leading counsel in appeal before Court of Appeal allowed - Court of Appeal remitted case back to High Court for full trial - Whether ad hoc admission of counsel only to appear in Court of Appeal and not to appear and conduct trial at High Court - Whether subject matters of appeal in Court of Appeal related to subject matters in trial before High Court - Expression 'in any one case or matter' under s. 10(1) of Advocates Ordinance (Sabah Cap 2) - Whether application for ad hoc admission limited to 'one case' or 'one matter' basis and not a blanket approval
WORDS & PHRASES: 'in any one case or matter' - Section 10(1) of Advocates Ordinance (Sabah Cap 2) - Appearance of counsel - Court allowed application for ad hoc admission of counsel to practice in Sabah to act as leading counsel in appeal before Court of Appeal - Whether ad hoc admission limited to 'one case' or 'one matter' basis and not a blanket approval - Whether permitted counsel to act for plaintiff only to appear in Court of Appeal and not to appear and conduct trial at High Court
Alwi Abdul Wahab J
- For the plaintiff - Tengku Ahmad Fuad Burhanuddin; M/s FT Ahmad & Co
- For the 1st to 4th defendants - Kong Hong Ming; M/s Lee & Kong
Sesuatu perbicaraan tidak akan menjadi terbatal dan tidak sah di bawah Akta Profesion Undang-undang 1976 walaupun peguambela yang mengendalikannya tidak memiliki Sijil Amalan Guaman yang sah selagi perbicaraan berkenaan dikendalikan olehnya dengan teratur dan selagi tidak wujud ketidakadilan; Kegagalan memperoleh Sijil Amalan Guaman hanya melibatkan urusan pendaftaran dan pentadbiran dengan Badan Peguam Malaysia yang boleh menjurus pada tindakan tatatertib yang bersifat 'personal' terhadap peguam.
Lim Kwee Lee lwn. PP [2019] 9 CLJ 532 [HC]
PROFESION GUAMAN: Amalan guaman - Seorang tanpa kebenaran - Perbicaraan dikendalikan oleh peguam bela tanpa Sijil Amalan Guaman sah daripada Badan Peguam Malaysia - Sama ada perbicaraan dikendalikan dengan teratur atau terdapat salah arahan, perbicaraan silap dan apa-apa kekhilafan semasa perbicaraan - Sama ada ketiadaan Sijil Amalan Guaman menjejaskan kekompetenan peguam - Sama ada hanya melibatkan urusan pendaftaran dan pentadbiran dengan Badan Peguam Malaysia untuk tindakan tatatertib yang bersifat 'personal' terhadap peguam - Sama ada perbicaraan terjumlah pada 'mistrial' - Sama ada perbicaraan semula wajar diperintahkan - Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976, ss. 29 & 37
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Perbicaraan - Perbicaraan semula - Permohonan - Perbicaraan dikendalikan oleh peguam bela tanpa Sijil Amalan Guaman sah daripada Badan Peguam Malaysia - Sama ada peruntukan bawah s. 173(a) hingga (m) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dilanggar - Sama ada memprejudiskan tertuduh dan menjurus pada perbicaraan silap - Sama ada perbicaraan terjumlah pada 'mistrial' - Sama ada perbicaraan semula wajar diperintahkan
Mat Ghani Abdullah PK
- Bagi pihak perayu - Hj Nordin Hussin; T/n Tia Nordin & Assocs
Vijayam Kunjappa; T/n Vijay & Co - Bagi pihak responden - Noor Farhana Adham; Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor
Where a service provider has provided services prior to the issuance of invoices and purchase orders with the assent of the recipient of the services, the agreement is deemed concluded notwithstanding the absence of any written contract between the parties; 'Proposal' and 'acceptance' within the meaning of s. 2(a) and (b) of the Contracts Act 1950 should be interpreted widely to cover the prevailing transaction in the interest of trade and commerce.
Nagasari Unggul Sdn Bhd v. Tee Chee Hong [2019] 9 CLJ 544 [HC]
CONTRACT: Agreement - Validity - Contract to provide service - Dispute as to existence of agreement - Whether contract could exist when invoice issued before issuance of purchase order - Whether constituted 'proposal' and 'acceptance' within s. 2(a) and (b) of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether agreement concluded before issuance of invoices - Whether failure to deny allegation of indebtedness amounted to admission - Whether party receiving benefit of services estopped from denying existence of agreement
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: 'Proposal' and 'acceptance' - Section 2(a) and (b) of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether 'proposal' in s. 2(a) requires proposal by an offeror to be in form of a purchase order or in any other particular form - Whether 'acceptance' in s. 2(b) states that purchase order can only be accepted by way of an invoice - Literal meaning - Whether wide - Whether narrow construction would cause uncertainty in commercial transaction
Wong Kian Kheong J
- For the appellant - Rusdy Ishak; M/s Lim & Yeoh
- For the respondent - Ishraf Hakim Mohd Nadzri; M/s G Ragumaren & Co
In the absence of a valid notice of discontinuance and/or notice to act in person being filed or evidence of appointment of new solicitors to take over conduct of a matter, the solicitors on record are always clothed with the locus standi to act pursuant to the terms of an order of the court.
Sabah State Attorney General’s Chambers v. Messrs Roland Cheng & Co & Anor [2019] 9 CLJ 555 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Locus standi - Action - Interpleader - Claim for title deeds pursuant to court order in earlier civil suit - Notice of change of solicitors by first respondent - Whether first respondent still on record - Whether there was evidence of appointment of another solicitor to take over from first respondent - Whether authority of first respondent rebutted - Whether first respondent entitled to have title deeds released to them - Rules of Court 2012, O. 17
Celestina Stuel Galid JC
- For the applicant - Chee Chun Yen; State Counsel, Sabah
- For the 1st respondent - Roland Cheng; M/s Roland Cheng & Co
- For the 2nd respondent - Afizal Aldin; M/s Umar Muhamad & Co
When it comes to sentencing 'youthful offenders', public interest is best served vide a rehabilitative sentence as opposed to a deterrent one; Likewise, a Community Service Order under s. 293(1)(e)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code is a more appropriate order as opposed to a fine and imprisonment sentence under s. 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
PP v. Muhammad Asyraf Ayut [2019] 9 CLJ 565 [MC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 6 - Possession - Plea of guilty - Sentencing - Mitigating and aggravating factors - Youthful offender - Public interest - Whether public interest best preserved in a rehabilitative sentence as opposed to a deterrent one - Whether punishment of fine and imprisonment suitable for accused - Whether imposing a Community Service Order a more appropriate sentence - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 293(1)(e)(i)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence - Youthful offender - Offence under s. 6 of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Plea of guilty - Mitigating and aggravating factors - Public interest - Whether public interest best preserved in a rehabilitative sentence as opposed to a deterrent one - Whether punishment of fine and imprisonment suitable for accused - Whether imposing a Community Service Order a more appropriate sentence - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 293(1)(e)(i)
Saifullah Qamar Mg
- For the prosecution - Noor Jazilah Mohd Yushaa, DPP
- For the accused - Unrepresented
LNS Article(s)
TRANSMISSION OF SHARES - UNIVERSAL SUCCESSION* [Read excerpt]
by LIM CHIA ANN [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxxviWHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT THE (BUSH) CAPITAL? SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AFTER #METOO* [Read excerpt]
by Allison Ballard** Jamie Ronald** [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxxv
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 A1605 | Companies (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 777 |
| ACT A1604 | Workers' Minimum Standards of Housing and Amenities (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 446 |
| ACT A1603 | Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 000 |
| ACT A1602 | Youth Societies and Youth Development (Amendment) Act 2019 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 668 |
| ACT A1601 | Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2019 | 30 September 2019 [PU(B) 453/2019] | ACT 317 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 268/2019 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 34) Order 2019 | 27 September 2019 | 28 September 2019 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 267/2019 | Tourism Tax (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2019 | 27 September 2019 | 1 October 2019 | PU(A) 240/2017 |
| PU(A) 265/2019 | Customs (Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2019 | 23 September 2019 | 24 September 2019 to 21 January 2020 | ACT 504; ACT 235 |
| PU(A) 264/2019 | Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 4) Order 2019 | 23 September 2019 | 24 September 2019 | PU(A) 401/1989 |
| PU(A) 263/2019 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) (No. 2) Order 2019 | 23 September 2019 | 24 September 2019 to 23 September 2024 | ACT 504; ACT 235 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 509/2019 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 17 October 2019 | 18 October 2019 | ACT A1600 |
| PU(B) 508/2019 | Reservation of Land for Public Purpose for Lot 101526 Mukim Petaling | 17 October 2019 | 18 October 2019 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 507/2019 | Reservation of Land for Public Purpose for Lot 3358 Town Kuala Lumpur | 17 October 2019 | 18 October 2019 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 506/2019 | Reservation of Land for Public Purpose for Lot 481548 Mukim Kuala Lumpur | 16 October 2019 | 17 October 2019 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 505/2019 | Reservation of Land for Public Purpose for Lot 3361 Town Kuala Lumpur | 16 October 2019 | 17 October 2019 | ACT 56/1965 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| ACT 736 | Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 | ACT A1600 | 1 November 2019 [PU(B) 509/2019] | Sections 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 21 & 21A |
| PU(A) 240/2017 | Tourism Tax (Exemption) Order 2017 | PU(A) 267/2019 | 1 October 2019 | Paragraph 3 |
| ACT 50 | Medical Act 1971 | PU(A) 258/2019 | 21 September 2019 | Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 153/2019 | Speed Limit (West Coast Expressway (Taiping-Banting)) Order 2019 | PU(A) 261/2019 | 23 September 2019 | First and Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 18/1989 | National Speed Limit Order 1989 | PU(A) 260/2019 | 23 September 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 |