|
Issue #47/2019
21 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
|
SIN-KUNG LOGISTICS (KL) SDN BHD v. PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BHD [2019] 10 CLJ 137
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
IDRUS HARUN JCA; YEOH WEE SIAM JCA; RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-02(W)-1920-09-2017]
11 JUNE 2019
A highway toll concessionaire may recover unpaid toll from highway users pursuant to s. 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984; employers of drivers with outstanding toll are vicariously liable for payment violations by their drivers, if the drivers were on working duty at the time they committed the offence.
TORT: ROAD TRAFFIC: Road - Highway - Payment of toll - Claim for unpaid toll - Lorries passed through toll booth without paying toll - Whether toll charges should have been collected from lorry drivers and lorry drivers would be reimbursed by employer - Whether employer vicariously liable for violation of lorry drivers - Whether failure to pay toll proven - Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, ss. 2(1), 8(1) & (2)
TORT: Vicarious liability - Employer - Claim for unpaid toll - Lorries passed through toll booth without paying toll - Whether toll charges should have been collected from lorry drivers and lorry drivers would be reimbursed by employer - Whether employer vicariously liable for violation of lorry drivers - Whether lorry drivers on duty when offences committed - Whether failure to pay toll proven - Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, ss. 2(1), 8(1) & (2)
-
Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah v. Malaysian Medical Council & Anor; Dr Lourdes Dava Raj Curuz Durai Raj (Proposed Intervener) [2018] 1 LNS 1083 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah v. Malaysian Medical Council [Civil Suit No: 25 - 138-07/2014]
-
PP lwn Yoganathan Boy Kuppu @ Uthirasan [2018] 1 LNS 1486 (CA) menolak kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP v. Yoganathan Boy Kuppu @ Uthirasan [2017] 1 LNS 561
Legal Network Series
|
ZULKIFLEE SM ANWARUL HAQUE v. KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA & ORS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Jurisdiction of Federal Court - Reference of constitutional questions by High Court to Federal Court - Constitutionality of decision of Government of Malaysia v. Loh Wai Kong [1979] 1 LNS 22; [1979] 2 MLJ 33 - Whether constitutional questions sought to be referred to Federal Court have a direct bearing to matter of dispute in substantive application - Whether art. 121 of Federal Constitution was an issue - Whether constitutional issues raised have been decided in many cases - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 84 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash travel ban imposed by Director General of Immigration - Whether decision of Director General of Immigration was amenable to judicial review pursuant to ouster clause in s. 59A of Immigration Act 1959/63 - Whether there was breach of natural justice
|
|
|
TEH LAY BEE v. OOI SAY CHYE FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial property - Order for sale - Consequential orders - Directions on manner of carrying out sale of properties - Petitioner moved out from properties while respondent continued occupying properties without paying any rental to petitioner - Whether it was appropriate for court to grant an order to require respondent to vacate, move out from properties and to deliver keys before any order for sale made - Whether it was fair and reasonable for respondent to bear all assessment charges, quit rent, and utility bills until date of receipt of keys by petitioner
|
|
|
SOON JING ENTERPRISE SDN BHD lwn. KERAJAAN NEGERI PERAK PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH BATANG PADANG & SATU LAGI UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Lanjutan masa - Bidang kuasa Mahkamah - Kelewatan selama lebih 4 tahun - Sama ada pemohon hendaklah membuat permohonan dalam tempoh masa 3 bulan dari tarikh pertama kali berbangkitnya alasan-alasan permohonan semakan kehakiman - Sama ada tarikh 3 bulan boleh dipanjangkan oleh Mahkamah - Sama ada bidang kuasa Mahkamah untuk membuat lanjutan masa adalah berasaskan peruntukan A. 3 k. 5 atau A. 53 Kaedah 3(7) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') - Sama ada peruntukan A. 53 KKM merupakan suatu peruntukan asas yang menentukan bidang kuasa Mahkamah UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Pengambilan tanah - Prinsip dan prosedur - Had masa untuk memfailkan permohonan semakan kehakiman - Borang D dan E dikeluarkan dua kali dalam Warta Kerajaan Negeri - Sama ada tempoh masa 3 bulan yang ditetapkan dalam A. 53 k. 3(6) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 adalah bermula dari tarikh pemohon menerima Borang E yang kedua
|
|
|
VTS CAPITAL SDN BHD v. CAPITOL AVENUE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD; SABAH ELECTRICITY SDN BHD (THIRD PARTY) CONTRACT: Sale and Purchase Agreement - Delay in delivery of vacant possession - Architect's Certificate of Extension of Time - Liquidated Damages - Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the Architect's Certificate to reduce the Liquidated Damages payable to the Plaintiff - Whether delay on the part of Sabah Electricity Sdn Bhd in supplying permanent power supply is sufficient ground for extension of time under the SPAs - Whether the delay was beyond the Defendant's control CONTRACT: Section 75 Contracts Act 1950 - Liquidated damages - Proof of damages - Calculation of damages - Whether the Plaintiff has proven its damages - Whether the Plaintiff's loss and reasonableness of liquidated damages clause under the SPAs can only be ascertained at full trial - Whether the Defendant's burden to prove that the amount claimed is unreasonable has been discharged CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary Judgment - O. 14 Rules of Court 2012 - Triable issues - Third party proceedings - Independent proceedings - Whether Third Party Proceedings hinder the grant of O. 14 application
|
|
|
LAN-JU ARAI @ NOSHEEN ARAI (P) lwn. TIEN YUEN FEI UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Penjagaan - Perintah jagaan - Permohonan untuk menyingkirkan atau melucut Responden ibu sebagai penjaga kepada anak - Anak berusia 7 tahun - Permohonan Pemohon untuk menjadi penjaga tunggal - Sama ada perlucutan responden sebagai penjaga bercanggah dengan kebajikan anak di bawah s. 11 Penjagaan Budak 1961 -- Sama ada Pemohon layak untuk mendapat hak penjagaan anak - Sama ada Pemohon membuat tuduhan palsu terhadap Responden - Sama ada Pemohon membuat pendedahan penuh dan jujur
|
CLJ 2019 Volume 10 (Part 2)
A highway toll concessionaire may recover unpaid toll from highway users pursuant to s. 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984; employers of drivers with outstanding toll are vicariously liable for payment violations by their drivers, if the drivers were on working duty at the time they committed the offence.
Sin-Kung Logistics (KL) Sdn Bhd v. Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd [2019] 10 CLJ 137 [CA]
ROAD TRAFFIC: Road - Highway - Payment of toll - Claim for unpaid toll - Lorries passed through toll booth without paying toll - Whether toll charges should have been collected from lorry drivers and lorry drivers would be reimbursed by employer - Whether employer vicariously liable for violation of lorry drivers - Whether failure to pay toll proven - Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, ss. 2(1), 8(1) & (2)
TORT: Vicarious liability - Employer - Claim for unpaid toll - Lorries passed through toll booth without paying toll - Whether toll charges should have been collected from lorry drivers and lorry drivers would be reimbursed by employer - Whether employer vicariously liable for violation of lorry drivers - Whether lorry drivers on duty when offences committed - Whether failure to pay toll proven - Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, ss. 2(1), 8(1) & (2)
Idrus Harun, Yeoh Wee Siam, Rhodzariah Bujang JJCA
- For the appellant - Diana Ling & Elaine Gan; M/s Elaine & Diana
- For the respondent - Krishna Dallumah, T Thirunaaukarasu & K Jegathis Kumar; M/s Thiru Jegatish & Assocs
"Suspicious circumstances" surrounding the making of a will refers to something abnormal or out of the ordinary in the context of the making of the will. Where the testamentary capacity of the testator is not disputed, and there is affirmative proof of his knowledge and approval of the contents of his will, suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will cannot be of much consequence and may not be able to invalidate the same.
Tob Weng Keong & Anor v. Tob Chee Hoong [2019] 10 CLJ 150 [CA]
SUCCESSION: Will - Validity - Testator made will in Cantonese through middle person - Testator instructed middle person on terms of will - Middle person conveyed testator's Cantonese instructions in English to solicitor - Solicitor prepared will and explained contents to middle person who, in turn, translated them to testator in Cantonese - Whether testator had full knowledge and approved of will - Whether there was probability of miscommunication between parties - Whether there was probability that testator did not understand contents of will - Whether there were suspicious circumstances surrounding making of will - Whether suspicious circumstances dispelled - Whether will valid
SUCCESSION: Will - Construction - Construction of clause in will - Testator made will appointing grandchildren as executors and beneficiaries - Allegation by grandchildren that will included current assets - Whether clause referred to all of testator's properties - Whether clause in will should be construed to include testator's current assets - Whether will clear, unambiguous and permitted several constructions of words - Whether there was mistake or miscommunication between parties - Whether will showed intention of testator to bequeath whole of his properties
Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Kamardin Hashim, Yew Jen Kie JJCA
- For the appellant - Cyrus Das & Max Yong BS; M/s Shui Tai
- For the respondent - Lambert Rasaratnam, Chan Mun Yew & Daryl Khor Tet Woei; M/s Kheng Hoe
A defendant who pleads limitation under s. 3 Limitation Ordinance (Sabah Cap 72) as a defence to a claim for breach or specific performance of an agreement is entitled to subsequently rely on any item in the Schedule to the Ordinance, notwithstanding that such item or Schedule was not specifically pleaded by him. What is mandatorily required to be pleaded by the proviso to s. 3 is limitation as a defence, and not the particular item or items of the Schedule to the Ordinance.
Trusjadi Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Waris Selesa Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) [2019] 10 CLJ 179 [CA]
LIMITATION: Contract - Sale and purchase of land - Claim for specific performance of sale and purchase agreement - Whether defence of limitation must be specifically pleaded - Whether defence had been set up pursuant to proviso to s. 3 of Limitation Ordinance (Sabah Cap 72) - Whether sufficient to aver intention to rely on limitation in statement of defence - Whether limitation set in - Limitation Ordinance (Sabah Cap 72), Schedule, items 92 & 95
Abdul Rahman Sebli, Kamardin Hashim, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal JJCA
- For the appellant - Victor Chong; M/s Poh & Victor Chong
- For the respondent - Chin Yuen Fong; M/s Chee & Co
- For the intervener - Arthur Bonnie & Wilson Chang; M/s Tan, Arthur Bonnie & Partners
Subsections 28A(8) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code are not ultra vires art. 5(3) of the Federal Constitution. Hence, a detainee's right to counsel as provided under art. 5(3) may be temporarily suspended post-arrest pursuant to the subsections, if the police have reason to believe that such access would impede their investigations.
Datuk Hasanah Abdul Hamid v. Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia & Anor [2019] 10 CLJ 191 [HC]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right of detained person - Right to counsel - Right to counsel during remand period - Whether to be accorded immediately after arrest - Suspension of right to counsel pursuant to sub-ss. 28A(8) and (9) of Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') - Suspension of right to counsel to ensure investigations carried out without impediments - Whether could be granted within reasonable time after arrest - Whether sub-ss. 28A(8) and (9) of CPC ultra vires art. 5(3) of Federal Constitution - Whether sub-ss. 28A(8) and (9) of CPC apply equally to any arrested person - Whether there was infringement of art. 8(1) of Federal Constitution
Nordin Hassan J
- For the applicant - Shaharuddin Hj Aziz, Mohd Khairul Azam Aziz & Nur Aifaa Zain; M/s Azam Aziz Shaharuddinali & Co
- For the respondents - Norzilawati lzhani Zainal @ Zainol; SFC
Section 535(1) of the Companies Act 2016 does not impose any time limit for an application to declare a company's dissolution void. The time limit of "two years after the date of dissolution" mentioned in the section refers rather to the time limit for the making of an order by the court declaring the dissolution void. It follows that the court's power to declare a dissolution void can only be made (at any time) within two years after such dissolution, but not thereafter.
Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia & Anor [2019] 10 CLJ 203 [HC]
COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Voluntary winding-up - Company dissolved - Application to declare dissolution void pursuant to s. 535(1) of Companies Act 2016 after expiration of two years - Whether court has power to extend time - Whether delay in application fatal to applicant - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 45
Wong Chee Lin JC
- For the plaintiff - Mohd Shafuddin Hasan, Nurul Nasyrah Mohd Nasir & Liz Ellyna Mohd Zaid
- For the 2nd defendant - DP Naban, S Saravana Kumar, Chris Toh Pei Roo & Tan Jia Xin; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
A financial institution acting in good faith in compliance with a valid order of seizure is not liable to any prosecution or claim for failure to release an account upon the expiration of a seizure order and may seek protection under ss. 50(2) and 77 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001; more so when it has been exonerated from any wrongdoing by a court in an earlier action.
Lim Hui Jin v. Inspektor Muhammad Noorariff Shah Zainuddin & Ors [2019] 10 CLJ 216 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Writ and statement of claim - Money laundering offences - Freezing and seizure order of plaintiff's bank account - Plaintiff's claim against bank alleging breach of statutory duties for its action or inaction to release plaintiff's account upon expiration of seizure order - Whether bank exonerated for all its actions against plaintiff's account - Whether bank liable for any prosecution, action or suit - Whether plaintiff estopped from raising issue - Whether plaintiff's claim obviously unsustainable - Whether abuse of court process - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, ss. 50(2), 77
CRIMINAL LAW: Money laundering - Offences - Freezing and seizure order of plaintiff's bank account - Plaintiff's claim against bank alleging breach of statutory duties for its action or inaction to release plaintiff's account upon expiration of seizure order - Bank applied to strike out plaintiff's writ and statement of claim - Whether bank exonerated for all its actions against plaintiff's account - Whether bank liable for any prosecution, action or suit - Whether plaintiff estopped from raising issue - Whether plaintiff's claim obviously unsustainable - Whether abuse of court process - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) - Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, ss. 50(2), 77
Mohd Radzi Harun JC
- For the plaintiff - Amir Faliq Mohamad Jamil & Siti Nor Syahidah Ismail; M/s Amir Faliq & Syahidah
- For the 1st-5th defendants - Malarselvi Sanmugam; SFC
- For the 6th defendant - Jeyanthini & Sharon; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
A policy of insurance is invalid and unenforceable if the insured is deceased at the time of its renewal; such policy is void ab initio and there is therefore no recourse to paras. 5(3) and 5(5) of Sch. 9 of the Financial Services Act 2013 to preserve the same.
Malaysia Motor Insurance Pool v. Eastern Moon Enterprise & Anor [2019] 10 CLJ 230 [HC]
INSURANCE: Motor insurance - Policy - Renewal of policy - Sole proprietor no longer alive when policy was renewed - Whether insurance contract validly procured - Whether there ought to be competent person in existence as insured to procure valid insurance - Whether immaterial that someone else had renewed policy purportedly for deceased - Whether policy null, void and unenforceable - Financial Services Act 2013, para 5 of Sch. 9 - Road Transport Act 1987, s. 96(3)
Lim Chong Fong J
- For the applicant - Imavathi Subramaniam; M/s Imavathi & Co
- For the 2nd respondent - Kernail Singh; M/s Baljit Singh & Co
Whether or not a High Court order is thought to be correct in law, it remains valid until it is set aside. An arbitrator, in interpreting such an order, cannot therefore construe it in such a manner as to arrive at a conclusion that contradicts the terms of the order.
Usahasama SPNB-LTAT Sdn Bhd v. Abi Construction Sdn Bhd [2019] 10 CLJ 238 [HC]
ARBITRATION: Award - Interim award - Setting aside - Application pursuant to ss. 37(1)(a)(iv), 37(1)(a)(v), 37(1)(a)(vi) and 37(1)(b)(ii) & 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether application by invoking both provisions of ss. 37 and 42 posed legal problems - Construction of Order of High Court by arbitrator - Whether question of law - Whether arbitrator allowed to interpret Order contrary to express terms of Order - Whether arbitrator considered principles of law - Whether interim award ought to be set aside
Darryl Goon Siew Chye JC
- For the plaintiff - M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
- For the defendant - M/s Haniff Khatri
Land, being a limited commodity, has a special value and any damages arising from it must be assessed within reasonable time to avoid the ever increasing price. And so, in an application for enlargement of time for assessment of damages involving land, the court must always take into account the reasons for the delay, and whether or not any prejudice has been caused to the other party.
Vellasamy Ponnusamy & Ors v. Gurbachan Singh Bagawan & Ors [2019] 10 CLJ 257 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Extension of time - Application for - Application for extension of time for assessment of damages - Federal Court and Court of Appeal ordered assessment of damages three and eight years, respectively, prior to application for extension of time - Whether application made within time prescribed under statutory provisions - Whether applicant in breach of O. 37 r. 1 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether O. 37 r. 1(1) mandatory and applicable to application - Whether there was inordinate delay - Whether there were cogent reasons for delay - Whether there was prejudice
Anselm Charles Fernandis JC
- For the plaintiffs - DP Vijandran & Adrian Jeyaraj Paul; M/s DP Vijandran & Assocs
- For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Rabinder Singh & Pavendeep Singh; M/s Rabin & Assocs
- For the 139 of 213 plaintiffs - Nadzratun Naim Hammand Azizi, Sharifah Nur Asmaai
- For plaintiffs in encl. 27 - Nurilya Ellyna
- Watching brief - M Manoharan; M/s M Manoharan & Co
LNS Article(s)
IDENTITY AND THE POLITICS OF CITIZENSHIP* [Read excerpt]
by TENGKU AHMAD HAZRI [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxxxvANOTHER WIN FOR JUDICIAL DYNAMISM - PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA V CHIN CHEE KOW [Read excerpt]
by Joshua Wu* Lee Yoke Shan** [2019] 1 LNS(A) cxxxvi
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) 300/2019 | Johor Port Authority (Scale of Charges) (Amendment) By-Laws 2019 | 31 October 2019 | 1 November 2019 | PU(A) 175/2011 |
| PU(A) 299/2019 | Food (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2019 | 30 October 2019 | 1 November 2019 except paragraph 2(c); 1 November 2020 - paragraph 2(c) | PU(A) 437/1985 |
| PU(A) 298/2019 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) (No. 4) Order 2019 | 30 October 2019 | 5 November 2019 | ACT 502 |
| PU(A) 297/2019 | International Trade In Endangered Species (Amendment of Second Schedule) Order 2019 | 30 October 2019 | 1 November 2019 | ACT 686 |
| PU(A) 296/2019 | International Trade In Endangered Species (Amendment of First Schedule) Order (No. 3) 2019 | 30 October 2019 | 1 November 2019 | ACT 686 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 535/2019 | Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Kelantan | 29 October 2019 | 30 October 2019 | PU(A) 293/2002 |
| PU(B) 534/2019 | Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Kedah | 29 October 2019 | 30 October 2019 | PU(A) 293/2002 |
| PU(B) 533/2019 | Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Perlis | 29 October 2019 | 30 October 2019 | PU(A) 293/2002 |
| PU(B) 532/2019 | Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Parlimen | 29 October 2019 | 30 October 2019 | PU(A) 293/2002 |
| PU(B) 531/2019 | Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor - Corrigendum | 25 October 2019 | PU(B) 200/2005 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 437/1985 | Food Regulations 1985 | PU(A) 299/2019 | 1 November 2019 except paragraph 2(c); 1 November 2020 - paragraph 2(c) | Regulation 139A |
| ACT 686 | International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 | PU(A) 297/2019 | 1 November 2019 | Second Schedule |
| ACT 686 | International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 | PU(A) 295/2019 | 1 November 2019 | First Schedule |
| ACT 686 | International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 | PU(A) 294/2019 | 1 November 2019 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 4/2017 | Fees (Marine Parks Malaysia) Order 2017 | PU(A) 281/2019 | 15 October 2019 | Paragraphs 2 and 3 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 50/2019 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) Order 2019 | PU(A) 292/2019 | 31 October 2019 |
| PU(A) 127/2015 | Strata Titles (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Rules 2015 | PU(A) 282/2019 | 1 January 2020 - Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only |
| 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 |