|
Issue #45/2019
07 November 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
|
JAYAGANESAN RAMAKRISHNAN v.
TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS [2019] 9 CLJ 725
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)-237-10-2018(B)]
17 JUNE 2019
Service of the Advisory Board's notice referred to in r. 5(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 is mandatory in nature. Where a detaining authority fails to serve such notice on a detainee, it can only mean that the latter's right to make a representation before the Board was unjustifiably denied, in which event, a writ of habeas corpus for his release is warranted.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus – Writ – Detention unders. 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 – Representation before Advisory Board – Whether a matter of detainee's substantive right – Notice thereof – Notice not served on detainee and detainee denied right to make representation – Whether a material non-compliance – Whether detention nullified
Legal Network Series
|
PIONA ABDUL LATIF lwn. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN GANTIRUGI: Gantirugi khas - Perbelanjaan ubah suai rumah - Kecuaian perubatan - Pesakit mengalami kerosakan otak yang teruk dan tidak dapat dipulihkan dan akan bergantung kepada orang lain untuk sepanjang hidup beliau - Perbelanjaan pengubahsuaian dan memasukkan penghawa dingin untuk plaintif sebelum dibawa balik ke rumah - Sama ada perbelanjaan ubah suai rumah adalah munasabah GANTIRUGI: Gantirugi khas - Keperluan nilai penjagaan - Plaintif mengalami kerosakan otak yang teruk dan tidak dapat dipulihkan dan akan bergantung kepada orang lain untuk sepanjang hidup beliau - Ibu dan kakak plaintif mengalami suasana yang susah untuk menjaga plaintif - Sama ada tuntutan keperluan nilai penjagaan wajar dibenarkan GANTIRUGI: Gantirugi am - Nilai penjagaan ahli keluarga - Plaintif mengalami kerosakan otak yang teruk dan tidak dapat dipulihkan dan akan bergantung kepada orang lain untuk sepanjang hidup beliau - Ibu plaintif akan bertindak bagi mengawasi pembantu rumah bagi memastikan plaintif mendapat penjagaan yang sempurna - Sama ada bantuan ibu plaintif dan ahli keluarga seharusnya dihargai GANTIRUGI: Gantirugi am - Kesakitan dan penderitaan - Kehilangan keselesaan dan keperluan hidup - Plaintif mengalami kerosakan otak yang teruk dan tidak dapat dipulihkan dan akan bergantung kepada orang lain untuk sepanjang hidup - Sama ada plaintif sepanjang hayatnya mengalami kesakitan akibat kecuaian pihak defendan - Sama ada plaintif akan mengalami kesakitan atas berbagai-bagai rawatan hospital, prosedur, suntikan, rawatan yang begitu menyakitkan
|
|
|
LIM POH KWEE v. LIM CHOON SENG LANDLORD AND TENANT: Tenancy - Recovery of immovable property - Claim for vacant possession - Notice to quit - Allegation of failure to settle annual rental - Whether tenant was in default of its annual rental - Whether examination of notice to quit could alter position of pleaded claim - Whether landlord's claim was sustainable
|
|
|
SUHAIMI HUSIN v. LATITUDE TREE FURNITURE SDN BHD & ANOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Industrial Court that held dismissal of applicant was with just cause and excuse - Misconduct - Industrial Court lumped several charges together without ascertaining if charges were proven individually - Whether findings of Industrial Court were against evidence given by witnesses - Whether Industrial Court made a finding on all complaints of misconduct - Whether award ought to be quashed
|
|
|
CHUAH GEOK YAN & ANOR v. POWER STAR MACHINERY SDN BHD CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Goods sold and delivered - Disputed invoices and statement of account - Computer generated documents - Whether contents of a computer-generated document could only be proved either by producing a certificate as required by s. 90A(2) of Evidence Act 1950 or calling maker - Whether there was evidence adduced as to computer's reliability - Whether invoices and statements of account were admissible - Whether there was proof of any amount owing to plaintiff
|
|
|
HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD lwn. NIK MOHD FAADLI MOHD SALLEH PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen yang menolak tuntutan plaintif - Plaintif menuntut kembali jumlah yang terlebih keluar ('debit') daripada akaun defendan kerana 'system glitches' kepada pihak ketiga - Sama ada defendan adalah dalang atau berkomplot dengan mana-mana pihak untuk menipu plaintif - Defendan memberi kerjasama dan dibimbing oleh plaintif untuk membuat laporan polis
|
CLJ 2019 Volume 9 (Part 6)
Service of the Advisory Board's notice referred to in r. 5(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1987 is mandatory in nature. Where a detaining authority fails to serve such notice on a detainee, it can only mean that the latter's right to make a representation before the Board was unjustifiably denied, in which event, a writ of habeas corpus for his release is warranted.
Jayaganesan Ramakrishnan v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2019] 9 CLJ 725 [FC]
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ - Detention under s. 6(1) Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Representation before Advisory Board - Whether a matter of detainee's substantive right - Notice thereof - Notice not served on detainee and detainee denied right to make representation - Whether a material non-compliance - Whether detention nullified
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
In a construction dispute, the right to call upon a bank guarantee which is an unconditional and on-demand performance bond, is subject to whether the employer acted unconscionably in calling on the bank guarantee and if so, it vitiates the validity of the demand and an injunction may be warranted.
Dunggon Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Aeropod Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2019] 9 CLJ 734 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Application for - Application to restrain first respondent from calling on bank guarantee - Unconscionability - Whether first respondent acted unconscionably in calling on bank guarantee - Whether vitiated validity of demand - Whether demand for bank guarantee premature, invalid and of no effect - Whether balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction - Whether damages an adequate remedy - Whether appellant prevented from filing application for injunction
CONTRACT: Guarantee - Bank guarantee - Unconscionability - Injunction - Application for - Application to restrain first respondent from calling on bank guarantee - Whether first respondent acted unconscionably in calling on bank guarantee - Whether vitiated validity of demand - Whether demand for bank guarantee premature, invalid and of no effect - Whether balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction - Whether damages an adequate remedy - Whether appellant prevented from filing application for injunction
Abdul Rahman Sebli, Kamardin Hashim, Kamaludin Md Said JJCA
- For the appellant - Rakhbir Singh; M/s Rakhbir Singh & Co
- For the 1st respondent - Lau Cheung Hoon; M/s Jayasuriya Kah & Co
The Court of Appeal, sitting as an apex court, will exercise its inherent jurisdiction to review its own earlier decision only in very limited and exceptional circumstances; an application premised purely on matters of fact will not be entertained as the applicant will not be allowed to question findings of fact which have been finalised.
Yim Peck Ha v. PP [2019] 9 CLJ 752 [CA]
JURISDICTION: Court of Appeal - Review - Application for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to review and set aside earlier decision - Whether inherent jurisdiction exercised only in limited and exceptional circumstances - Whether grounds relied on by applicant related to matters of fact - Whether seeking to reopen evidence which had been heard and finally determined - Whether review jurisdiction could be used to question finding of facts - Whether applicant showed earlier decision was wrong and caused injustice to applicant - Whether applicant attempting to turn application into appeal - Whether review warranted
Md Raus Sharif PCA, Balia Yusof Wahi, Mohd Zawawi Salleh JJCA
- For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik & Lam Cheng Wun; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
- For the respondent - Norina Bahadun & Mohd Fairuz Johari; DPPs
When deciding on an application for stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration, the court has a broad discretion under s. 10(2) of the Arbitration Act 2005 to impose conditions to ensure that a party seeking a stay order will proceed expeditiously with the arbitration and while the parties may apply to reinstate the case for continued hearing in court if arbitration cannot proceed for some reason, parties are expected to adhere to the timelines imposed by the court.
FAMG Idaman Resources v. Jasmadu Sdn Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 763 [HC]
ARBITRATION: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Whether there was a binding arbitration agreement or clause between parties - Whether matter brought before court concerned rights and liabilities of parties as encapsulated in arbitration agreement - Whether conditions of s. 10(1) of Arbitration Act 2005 fulfilled - Whether court should exercise its discretion to impose a condition whereby applicant should proceed with arbitration within 30 days from date of stay order - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 10(2)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Whether there was a binding arbitration agreement or clause between parties - Whether matter brought before court concerned rights and liabilities of parties as encapsulated in arbitration agreement - Whether conditions of s. 10(1) of Arbitration Act 2005 fulfilled - Whether court should exercise its discretion to impose a condition whereby party seeking stay order should proceed with arbitration within 30 days from date of order - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 10(2)
Lee Swee Seng J
- For the plaintiff - Muhammad Faizi Tajuddin; M/s Faizul Nasir & Co
- For the defendant - William Ch'ng; M/s Terrence & Randy
1) The duty of a High Court judge sitting in his revisionary capacity is not confined to matters raised by the parties but he may, in appropriate cases, pry deeper into the case to ensure substantial justice in the case.
2) A non-citizen who is born within the jurisdictional boundaries of Malaysia cannot be considered an "illegal immigrant" under s. 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/1963 as there is no "entry" into the country from another sovereign state.
Iwan Liaw v. PP [2019] 9 CLJ 780 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Immigration Act 1959/63 - Section 6(1)(c) - Accused charged with 'entering Malaysia without a valid Pass' - Accused born in Sarawak to Indonesian mother, deemed an Indonesian national but never left Sarawak - Key ingredients - Element of 'entry into Malaysia' - Whether totally absent - Whether accused wrongly charged - Whether ought to be acquitted and discharged - Immigration Act 1959/63, s. 6(1)(c)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Revisionary powers of High Court - Conditions precedent - Whether exercisable when court having before it record of criminal proceedings on appeal - Whether could probe into other aspects of appeal to achieve substantial justice - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 325
Christopher Chin Soo Yin JC
- For the appellant - Osman Ibrahim & Fadzillah Osman; M/s Osman Ibrahim & Co
- For the respondent - Hayda Faridzal Abu Hassan; DPP
A partner is not prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1976 from applying to register a trade mark which belongs to the partnership in his own name. A partner who does so becomes the registered proprietor of the trade mark in trust for the partnership.
Kong Kin Loong & Anor v. Kong Sou Keet & Ors [2019] 9 CLJ 789 [HC]
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Registration - Appeal against decision of Registrar of Trade Mark allowing registration of combined trade mark for goods - Whether applicant common law proprietor and owner of mark - Whether use of mark would cause likelihood of deception/confusion among public - Whether mark distinctive of goods - Whether other partners in partnership must be named as co-applicants when applying for registration of trade mark - Whether applicant first user of mark - Whether application bona fide - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 10, 14, 19, 25 & 28
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons - Appeal - Appeal against decision of Registrar of Trade Mark allowing registration of combined trade mark for goods - Appellants opposed registration in notice of opposition and later filed originating summons - Originating summons contained new grounds not stated in notice of opposition - Whether appellants barred from relying on new grounds to support originating summons - Trade Marks Act 1976, s. 28(7)
Wong Kian Kheong J
- For the plaintiffs - Andrew Yee Pau Onn & Gokila Wani; M/s Mohd Ravi, Andrew & Assocs
- For the defendants - Melissa Long Lai Peng & Lam Rui Rong; M/s Skrine
It is not acceptable, both in law and equity, for a party who has paid nothing towards the purchase of a property to be recognised as a beneficial owner. That is akin to unjust enrichment.
Modular Tropical Ventures (M) Sdn Bhd v. George Varughese & Another Case [2019] 9 CLJ 812 [HC]
LAND LAW: Sale and purchase of properties - Ownership - Dispute - Whether plaintiff proved that he was legal or beneficial owner of properties - Whether plaintiff made payment for purchase of properties - Defendant's claim to ownership by virtue of trust deed - Whether trust deed a valid document - Whether plaintiff held properties on trust for benefit of defendant
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Admissibility - Dispute as to ownership of properties - Admissibility of instruments relied on to prove beneficial ownership of properties - Whether irrevocable power of attorney valid - Whether members' resolution inadmissible - Whether there was legal impediment to recognise validity of trust deed
Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh JC
- For the plaintiff - Ranjan N Chandran, Bhavani Vadivelu & Nuriahtun Maria Samad; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
- For the defendant - S Satharuban, Anne Sangeetha Sebastian & Kalaivaanan Murthy; M/s Satha & Co
A vendor who executes a consent order providing for a bona fide attempt to sell a property for a fixed minimum price, but unreasonably withholds performance or completion of the sale notwithstanding the procurement of the said minimum price, may be liable to the said procurer for breach of contract, and may further be ordered to refund any deposit paid to him by the latter.
Ng Geok Hwa v. Tong Chun Sing & Sons Sdn Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 832 [HC]
LAND LAW: Sale and purchase agreement - Purchase of land - Parties entered into consent order for bona fide attempt to sell land for a minimum price of RM25,500,000 - Plaintiff procured an offer to purchase land by a company purchaser at RM25,500,000 - Vendor rejected company's offer to purchase land - Whether vendor unreasonably withheld agreement to sell land - Whether vendor currently negotiating with another intended purchaser to sell land at higher price - Whether vendor breached contract embodied in consent order in refusing company's offer to buy land - Whether vendor's concerns with bona fides of company's offer reasonable grounds to reject offer - Whether vendor precluded plaintiff from any further opportunity to procure purchaser by binding itself to a sale and purchase agreement with another intended purchaser - Whether vendor in breach of consent order
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - Sale and purchase of land - Parties entered into consent order for bona fide attempt to sell land for a minimum price of RM25,500,000 - Plaintiff procured an offer to purchase land by a company purchaser at RM25,500,000 - Vendor rejected company's offer to purchase land - Whether vendor unreasonably withheld agreement to sell land - Whether vendor currently negotiating with another intended purchaser to sell land at higher price - Whether vendor breached contract embodied in consent order in refusing company's offer to buy land - Whether vendor's concerns with bona fides of company's offer reasonable grounds to reject offer - Whether vendor precluded plaintiff from any further opportunity to procure purchaser by binding itself to a sale and purchase agreement with another intended purchaser - Whether vendor in breach of consent order
Darryl Goon Siew Chye JC
- For the plaintiff - Gan Khong Aik & Lim Bee San; M/s Gan Partnership
- For the defendant - Niak Hiong Keong & Nabila Kamarudin; M/s Christopher & Lee Ong
Watikah pelantikan seorang pegawai pengelas rahsia rasmi seperti Pengarah Lembaga Peperiksaan oleh Menteri Pendidikan di bawah s. 213 Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972, walaupun tidak dibuat dengan sempurna dan tidak ditandatangani oleh Menteri Pendidikan, masih sah dan boleh digunapakai, jika terdapat suatu pelantikan terdahulu yang sempurna dan dibuat oleh Menteri Pelajaran (pada ketika itu) yang masih tidak dibatalkan oleh Menteri Pelajaran tersebut. Malah, tanpa surat pelantikan oleh Menteri sedemikian pun, kuasa seorang Pengarah Lembaga Peperiksaan untuk mengelas sesuatu dokumen sebagai rahsia rasmi masih wujud berdasarkan s. 16A Akta tersebut.
PP lwn. Uma Mageswari Periasamy [2019] 9 CLJ 857 [HC]
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Pelepasan dan pembebasan - Kesalahan bawah s. 8(1)(c)(ii) Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972 ('Akta') - Kebocoran kertas soalan peperiksaan - Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir kes - Sama ada pelantikan saksi sebagai pegawai pengelas rahsia rasmi dibuat dengan sempurna - Sama ada mematuhi s. 2B Akta - Sama ada tertuduh bertindak melupuskan bukti - Sama ada kertas soalan diakses semasa masih rahsia rasmi - Sama ada pengetahuan berkaitan soalan peperiksaan dalam telefon dibuktikan - Sama ada tertuduh penerima tidak bersalah - Sama ada hakim bicara menilai kesemua keterangan dengan sewajarnya - Sama ada pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah - Sama ada perintah pelepasan dan pembebasan wajar digantikan dengan sabitan terhadap kesalahan
Asmadi Hussin PK
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Azhar Mokhtar & Nor Raihan Rithwan; TPR
- Bagi pihak responden - Omar Kutty; T/n Kula & Assoc
LNS Article(s)
VDN v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI (HIGH COURT)
A CASE NOTE* [Read excerpt]
by ABHILAASH SUBRAMANIAM [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxxxiiPRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
MUSING ON OBLIGATIONS* [Read excerpt]
by CHRIS DONOLUE [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxxxi
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) 280/2019 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 36) Order 2019 | 11 October 2019 | 12 October 2019 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 278/2019 | Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 2009 - Corrigendum | 11 October 2019 | PU(A) 299/2009 | |
| PU(A) 277/2019 | Feed (Compoundable Offences) Regulations 2019 | 10 October 2019 | 11 October 2019 | ACT 698 |
| PU(A) 276/2019 | Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 35) Order 2019 [revoked by PU(a) 280/2019] | 4 October 2019 | 5 October 2019 | ACT 723 |
| PU(A) 275/2019 | Customs Duties (Exemption) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2019 | 4 October 2019 | 7 October 2019 | PU(A) 445/2017 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 515/2019 | Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 | 24 October 2019 | 25 October 2019 to 7 November 2019 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 514/2019 | Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 | 23 October 2019 | 1 November 2019 to 30 November 2019 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 513/2019 | Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land for Public Purpose for Lot 1320 Town Kuala Lumpur | 22 October 2019 | 23 October 2019 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 512/2019 | Notice Under Subregulation 11(5a) Polling Hours for the By-Election of the Dewan Rakyat P.165 Tanjung Piai In the State of Johore | 21 October 2019 | 22 October 2019 | PU(A) 386/1981 |
| PU(B) 511/2019 | Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 | 21 October 2019 | 1 November 2019 to 30 November 2019 | ACT 235 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 445/2017 | Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2017 | PU(A) 275/2019 | 7 October 2019 | Schedule |
| F.M.S CAP. 142 | Malay Reservations Enactment [As Applicable to the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur] | PU(A) 273/2019 | 2 October 2019 - Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only | Third Schedule |
| F.M.S CAP. 142 | Malay Reservations Enactment [As Applicable to the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur] | PU(A) 272/2019 | 2 October 2019 - Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only | Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 479/1999 | Consumer Protection (The Tribunal For Consumer Claims) Regulations 1999 | PU(A) 270/2019 | 1 October 2019 | Second Schedule |
| ACT 736 | Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 | ACT A1600 | 1 November 2019 [PU(B) 509/2019] | Sections 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 21 & 21A |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 51/2000 | Income Tax (Deduction For Information Technology-Related Expenditure) Rules 2000 | PU(A) 274/2019 | Year of assessment 2018 |
| 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 |