|
Issue #19/2020
30 April 2020
|
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
|
TINDAK MURNI SDN BHD v. JUANG SETIA SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL [2020] 4 CLJ 301
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
[CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO: 03-2-11-2018 (B) & 02(i)-104-11-2018 (B)]
17 FEBRUARY 2020
A judgment in default ('JID') cannot be sustained when the plaintiff who obtains the JID is bound by a valid arbitration clause and the defendant has raised disputes to be ventilated via arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause. The court, in hearing an application to set aside the JID where a valid arbitration clause is binding on parties, should not consider the 'merits' or 'existence' of the disputes raised by the defendant.
ARBITRATION: Arbitration clause - Building contract - Employer and contractor entered into building construction contract - Contract contained clause requiring parties to refer any dispute to arbitration - Contractor commenced claim for sums owing against employer at High Court - Employer did not file appearance and alleged that there was dispute between parties warranting set-off or complete defence to claim - Contractor obtained judgment in default against employer - Whether judgment in default could be sustained - Whether court should consider merits or disputes raised by employer - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 9 & 10
CONTRACT: Building contract - Arbitration clause - Employer and contractor entered into building construction contract - Contract contained clause requiring parties to refer any dispute to arbitration - Contractor commenced claim against employer at High Court claiming for sums owing - Employer did not file appearance and alleged that there was dispute between parties warranting set-off or complete defence to claim - Contractor obtained judgment in default against employer - Whether there were issues or disputes of fact that required resolution at trial - Whether there was a valid arbitration clause that parties had agreed to be bound by - Whether arbitration clause valid, applicable or operative - Whether court proceedings ought to be stayed pending referral of dispute to arbitration
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Stay of proceedings pending arbitration - Employer and contractor entered into building construction contract - Contract contained clause requiring parties to refer any dispute to arbitration - Contractor commenced claim against employer at High Court for sums owing - Employer did not file appearance and alleged that there was dispute between parties warranting set-off or complete defence to claim - Contractor obtained judgment in default against employer - Whether there were issues or disputes of fact that required resolution at trial - Whether there was a valid arbitration clause that parties had agreed to be bound by - Whether arbitration clause valid, applicable or operative - Whether court proceedings ought to be stayed pending referral of dispute to arbitration
"In the case before me, the society in question, a political party, was made the respondent in the forfeiture action. It is not the party instituting the action as the applicant, which in this case is the Public Prosecutor. Pursuant to s. 9(c), the suit by the applicant must name the society's public officer as registered with the Registrar of Society. If none is registered, any one of its office bearers must be named instead. The Public Prosecutor did neither."
"However, for all practical purposes, the society and its branch have been correctly identified and there is no confusion as to whose property is now sought to be forfeited by the Public Prosecutor. But there is still non-compliance with s. 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966. I agree the requirement is mandatory but I do not think such a failure justifies the striking out of the entire forfeiture action." - Per Nazlan Ghazali J in Umno Bahagian Pekan v. PP [2020] 2 CLJ 272
Legal Network Series
|
LIEW SWEE YEE v. METRO HOMES SDN BHD A party recruiting negotiators is entitled to claim for shared sales commissions although the actual sales were carried out by negotiators. Commissions are payable once a booking is done and re-selling of units do not affect the right to shared commissions. PARTNERSHIP: Liabilities of partners - Claim by one partner against another partner - Claim for shared commission - Plaintiff was offered a partnership with defendant to assist defendant to recruit and monitor real estate agents known as negotiators and to secure development projects - Actual sales were carried out by negotiators - Whether commission was to be shared for sales done - Whether claim based on estate agency commission - Whether claim was tainted with illegality - Whether commission was payable once booking done - Whether re-selling of units affected right to commission
|
|
|
CIMB BANK BERHAD v. WELLCOM COMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN BHD & ORS 1. A guarantor's obligation to make payment on sums falling due and payable remains and the existence of an escrow account does not absolve the guarantor from the obligation to make payment. 2. A lender is entitled to levy default interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum above base lending rate on any unpaid principal amount of a term loan and/or interest from the due date until the date of actual payment in full. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Banking - Enforcement of corporate guarantee - Insufficient payment received from escrow account - Charging of default interest - Whether lender was entitled to charge default interest at rate of 3.5% per annum above base lending rate - Whether payment in settlement made on term loan facility vide escrow account had absolved guarantors' obligation to satisfy all sums due and payable on the said term loan facility - Whether guarantors were at all times duly alerted of insufficient payments received from escrow account - Whether guarantors' averments were substantiated and amounts to triable issues
|
|
|
SUBRAMANIAM PONNUSAMY & SATU LAGI lwn. KATHIRESAN RAJOO & SATU LAGI 1. Setiap permohonan lanjutan masa untuk memfailkan notis rayuan perlu difailkan secara berasingan bagi setiap penghakiman yang berlainan yang hendak dirayu dan kegagalan berbuat sedemikian akan menjadikan sesuatu permohonan tersebut tidak teratur. 2. Kelewatan yang disebabkan oleh tindakan pemohon yang telah mengambil masa untuk menyediakan wang yuran yang mencukupi untuk melantik peguam baru dan perbincangan dengan peguam terdahulu dan peguam baru bukan merupakan alasan yang munasabah untuk membenarkan perlanjutan masa. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Lanjutan masa - Pemfailan dua permohonan lanjutan masa untuk merayu dalam satu saman pemula bagi dua penghakiman yang berlainan - Sama ada permohonan adalah teratur PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Lanjutan masa - Permohonan berdasarkan relif yang salah - Perayu merujuk untuk memfailkan notis rayuan keatas penghakiman ingkar sedangkan penghakiman yang diperolehi adalah selepas bicara penuh - Bicara diteruskan tanpa kehadiran pemohon - Pemohon mendakwa ketidakhadiran adalah tidak disengajakan kerana peguam tidak memaklumkan tarikh bicara - Sama ada kesilapan peguam merupakan alasan yang munasabah untuk membenarkan perlanjutan masa PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Lanjutan masa - Budi bicara - Kelewatan selama 7 bulan - Pemohon mendakwa telah mengambil masa untuk menyediakan wang yuran yang mencukupi untuk berjumpa dan melantik peguam baru untuk mengendalikan rayuan - Pemohon mendakwa telah mengambil masa untuk berbincang dengan peguam baru dan memperolehi maklumat daripada peguam-peguam terdahulu - Sama ada alasan yang munasabah dan kukuh telah diberikan untuk perlanjutan masa PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penggantungan pelaksanaan - Keadaan-keadaan khas - Tuntutan berbentuk kewangan - Kemungkiran perjanjian pinjaman persahabatan - Sama ada wujud keadaan-keadaan khas yang mewajarkan pengeluaran permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan
|
|
|
PP lwn. ADIB NAFIS HASSANE NAFIS & SATU LAGI KES Seseorang tertuduh tidak mempunyai kawalan ekslusif dadah-dadah yang dijumpai di tempat kediaman yang disewa olehnya apabila tempat kediaman tersebut boleh diakses oleh orang lain. Pengetahuan berserta kawalan perlu wujud untuk membuktikan elemen pemilikan dadah. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes pendakwaan - Pembuktian kes prima facie - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Dadah dijumpai di dalam rumah - Tertuduh berada di luar rumah ketika serbuan - Pihak pendakwaan gagal memanggil saksi yang berada di dalam rumah ketika serbuan - Sama ada inferen bertentangan terpakai terhadap pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan ekslusif ke atas dadah - Sama ada pengetahuan semata-mata cukup untuk membuktikan pemilikan
|
|
|
NATURE EVERLASTING SDN BHD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "CSC RUI HAI" Claim for damages and expenses for excessive security and prolonged detention does not fall within s. 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and the Court is thus not conferred with jurisdiction to hear claims that do not fall within the ambit of s. 20. Nevertheless, claims for damages could be ventilated and resolved by arbitration as agreed by parties in the Fixture Note. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Admiralty - Security for release of ship - Application for reduction of amount of security - Court imposed USD 4,000,000 as security for release of ship - Whether amount of security imposed was reasonable - Rules of Court 2012, O. 70 rr. 9(10), (11) MARITIME LAW: Action in rem - Jurisdiction of court - Claim for damages and expenses for excessive security and prolonged detention - Whether claim for damages and expenses for excessive security and prolonged detention falls within ambit of s. 20 of Supreme Court Act 1981 ('Act 1981') - Whether court is conferred with jurisdiction to hear claim for damages and expenses which do not fall within s. 20 of Act 1981 - Whether claim for damages ought to be ventilated and resolved by arbitration as agreed by parties
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 4 (Part 3)
A judgment in default ('JID') cannot be sustained when the plaintiff who obtains the JID is bound by a valid arbitration clause and the defendant has raised disputes to be ventilated via arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause. The court, in hearing an application to set aside the JID where a valid arbitration clause is binding on parties, should not consider the 'merits' or 'existence' of the disputes raised by the defendant.
Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v. Juang Setia Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 4 CLJ 301 [HC]
ARBITRATION: Arbitration clause - Building contract - Employer and contractor entered into building construction contract - Contract contained clause requiring parties to refer any dispute to arbitration - Contractor commenced claim for sums owing against employer at High Court - Employer did not file appearance and alleged that there was dispute between parties warranting set-off or complete defence to claim - Contractor obtained judgment in default against employer - Whether judgment in default could be sustained - Whether court should consider merits or disputes raised by employer - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 9 & 10
CONTRACT: Building contract - Arbitration clause - Employer and contractor entered into building construction contract - Contract contained clause requiring parties to refer any dispute to arbitration - Contractor commenced claim against employer at High Court claiming for sums owing - Employer did not file appearance and alleged that there was dispute between parties warranting set-off or complete defence to claim - Contractor obtained judgment in default against employer - Whether there were issues or disputes of fact that required resolution at trial - Whether there was a valid arbitration clause that parties had agreed to be bound by - Whether arbitration clause valid, applicable or operative - Whether court proceedings ought to be stayed pending referral of dispute to arbitration
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Stay of proceedings pending arbitration - Employer and contractor entered into building construction contract - Contract contained clause requiring parties to refer any dispute to arbitration - Contractor commenced claim against employer at High Court for sums owing - Employer did not file appearance and alleged that there was dispute between parties warranting set-off or complete defence to claim - Contractor obtained judgment in default against employer - Whether there were issues or disputes of fact that required resolution at trial - Whether there was a valid arbitration clause that parties had agreed to be bound by - Whether arbitration clause valid, applicable or operative - Whether court proceedings ought to be stayed pending referral of dispute to arbitration
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
- For the appellant - Justin Voon & Cheng Sing Yih; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
- For the respondent - Chew Chang Min, Liza Chan Sow Keng & Shareen Tan Sze Ying; M/s Liza Chan & Co
The ability of a mentally disabled accused to stand trial and to effectively put forward his defence is a matter that the trial judge must continually assess and address throughout the trial to ensure that the criminal procedure that is ill-adept to cater to the disabilities of the mind for such a vulnerable accused, is nevertheless able to provide a fair trial to such an accused. Treating such an accused with mental disability the way a normally functioning person would be treated by the criminal justice system would cause a miscarriage of justice.
Muhd Haslam Abdul lah v. PP [2020] 4 CLJ 328 [CA]
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused possessed 'Person with Disability Card' - Whether accused mentally stable and fit to stand trial - Failure to mark medical report as exhibit - Treating accused with mental disability as normally functioning person by criminal justice system - Whether miscarriage of justice - Failure to address whether accused had difficulty following court procedure - Whether misdirection by trial judge - Whether unsworn statement from dock by mentally disabled person should be given less weight - Whether trial judge properly addressed defence put forth by accused - Whether conviction safe - Whether prosecution proved trafficking of drugs beyond reasonable doubt - Whether accused ought to be acquitted and discharged - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 342 & 343
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Drug trafficking - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused possessed 'Person with Disability Card' - Whether accused mentally stable and fit to stand trial - Failure to mark medical report as exhibit - Treating accused with mental disability as normally functioning person by criminal justice system - Whether miscarriage of justice - Failure to address whether accused had difficulty following court procedure - Whether misdirection trial judge - Whether unsworn statement from dock by mentally disabled person should be given less weight - Whether trial judge addressed defence put forth by accused as best he could - Whether conviction safe - Whether prosecution proved trafficking of drugs beyond reasonable doubt - Whether accused ought to be acquitted and discharged - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 342 & 343
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN DIAH JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
- For the appellant - K Viknesvaran; M/s Viknes Ratna & Co
- For the prosecution - Faizah Mohd Salleh; DPP
The issue of whether or not to grant a consequential order lies in the exercise of discretion by the court, namely, to do justice to the parties. It is also to give effect to the initial judgment of the court. In such instances, the consequential order granted cannot amount to a variation or alteration of the initial judgment. The consequential order is to 'work out' the initial order to give effect to the same. The very essence of the initial judgment is still preserved and maintained. The courts in such instances cannot be said to be functus officio.
Stone World Sdn Bhd v. Engareh (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 4 CLJ 354 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Consequential order - Occurrence of intervening events after initial judgment given - Whether caused injustice - Whether court had jurisdiction in invoking inherent jurisdiction to make consequential orders to give effect to initial judgment - Whether consequential order amounted to variation or alteration of initial judgment - Whether court functus officio - Whether consequential order made in blatant defiance of substantive provision - Principle in Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd - Whether established - Doctrine of res judicata and issue estoppel - Whether applicable
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons - Impeachment - Impeachment proceedings - Applying to impeach consequential order of High Court - Occurrence of intervening events after initial judgment given - Whether caused injustice - Whether court had jurisdiction in invoking inherent jurisdiction to make consequential orders to give effect to initial judgment - Whether consequential order amounted to variation or alteration of initial judgment - Whether court functus officio - Whether consequential order made in blatant defiance of substantive provision - Principle in Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd - Whether established - Doctrine of res judicata and issue estoppel - Whether applicable - Whether originating summons a back door attempt to reopen dispute fully determined to its finality - Whether abuse of process of court
UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
- For the appellant - Robert Low, Ahmad Shahrizal & Khong Mei Yan; M/s Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low
- For the respondent - Terence KM Chan, Bryan Goh; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co
Under s. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC'), the ultimate decision as to whether any particular criminal case should be transferred from a subordinate court to the High Court does not depend merely on the arbitrary selection or whim of the Public Prosecutor but is determined ultimately on the proper exercise of judicial discretion by the High Court.
PP v. Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim & Another Application [2020] 4 CLJ 386 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Charges - Criminal charges - Accused persons charged with offences under Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Charges initially filed at Sessions Court - Sessions Court allowed accused persons' cases to be jointly tried - Prosecution filed for transfer of cases from Sessions Court to High Court - Whether case of public interest involving public figures - Whether complexity of charges made it expedient that case be heard at High Court - Whether transfer of cases to High Court prejudicial - Whether transfer of cases promote judicial efficiency - Whether criminal cases must commence where they are registered in adherence to remit of criminal jurisdiction of Sessions Court - Whether prosecution succeeded in establishing case to justify transfer of criminal charges to High Court under s. 417(1)(e) of Criminal Procedure Code
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution - Conduct of criminal prosecution - Accused persons charged with offences under Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Charges initially filed at Sessions Court - Sessions Court allowed accused persons' cases to be jointly tried - Prosecution filed for transfer of cases from Sessions Court to High Court - Whether case of public interest involving public figures - Whether complexity of charges made it expedient that case be heard at High Court - Whether transfer of cases to High Court prejudicial - Whether transfer of cases promote judicial efficiency - Whether criminal cases must commence where they are registered in adherence to remit of criminal jurisdiction of Sessions Court - Whether prosecution succeeded in establishing case to justify transfer of criminal charges to High Court under s. 417(1)(e) of Criminal Procedure Code
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J
- For the applicant - Baizura Kamal, Nik Haslinie Hashim, Adam Mohamed, Aimi Syazwani Sarmin & Hafizatul Ifa Abdul Razak; DPPs
- For the respondent - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, MM Athimulan, Mohamed Fudhail Zulaini, Marina Mohamed, Arwindar Gill & Mohd Rifahmi Abdul Musikin; M/s Athimulan & Co
Save in exceptional cases and for very good reasons, the High Court ought not to exercise its powers of revision under s. 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code, more so, when the avenue to appeal has not been exhausted by the applicant.
PP v. Sogas Trading [2020] 4 CLJ 410 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Revision of conviction and sentence - Application against decision of Sessions Court Judge - Factors to be considered - Failure to appeal against decision - Whether good reasons offered - Whether factor of urgency presented - Whether application amounted to backdoor appeal
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the applicant - Nur Azureen Zainalkefli; DPP
- For the respondent - Mohd Khairul Fairuz Rahman; M/s Shaiful Rahman, Hajar & Co
The cancellation of a temporary visit pass issued to a foreign employee for contravening reg. 39(b) of the Immigration Regulations 1963, the subsequent order of detention and order of removal from Malaysia was lawful where all the procedures on cancellation of pass under the Immigration Act 1959/63 had been complied with, and in the absence of mala fide and irregularity.
Shuvo Molla v. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen Malaysia & Ors [2020] 4 CLJ 419 [HC]
IMMIGRATION: Detention - Order of removal - Foreign employee - Temporary working visit pass - Cancellation of - Failure to comply with conditions in pass - Whether contravened reg. 39(b) of Immigration Regulations 1963 - Whether cancellation of pass led to removal of foreign employee - Whether foreign employee must be prohibited immigrant before pass could be cancelled - Whether imposition of fine categorised foreign employee as member of prohibited class of immigrants - Whether procedures on cancellation of pass complied with - Immigration Act 1959/63, ss. 32(1), 34(1), 35, 52(2) & 56(2)
IMMIGRATION: Detention - Validity - Order of detention and order of removal - Foreign employee charged under reg. 39(b) of Immigration Regulations 1963 ('Regulations') - Failure to comply with conditions under temporary working visit pass - Cancellation of pass under reg. 19 of Regulations - Whether cancellation led to removal of foreign employee - Whether there was avenue of appeal under reg. 19 - Whether imposition of fine categorised foreign employee as member of prohibited class of immigrants - Whether procedures on cancellation of pass complied with - Whether order of detention and order of removal issued regularly - Immigration Act 1959/63, ss. 32(1), 34(1), 35, 52(2) & 56(2)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas Corpus - Application for - Foreign employee charged under reg. 39(b) of Immigration Regulations 1963 ('Regulations') - Failure to comply with conditions under temporary working visit pass - Cancellation of pass under reg. 19 of Regulations - Issuance of order of detention and order of removal - Whether imposition of fine categorised foreign employee as member of prohibited class of immigrants - Whether procedures on cancellation of pass complied with - Whether powers of arrest and detention under ss. 34 and 35 of Immigration Act 1959/63 lawful - Whether order of detention and order of removal issued regularly - Immigration Act 1959/63, ss. 32(1), 34(1), 35, 52(2) & 56(2)
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH J
- For the applicant - Harpal Singh Tara Singh; M/s T Harpal & Assocs
- For the respondents - Ainaa Lutfiah Mohamed Zulkafli; DPP
The respondent wife had clearly failed to comply with s. 16(1) of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 when she did not answer the petitioner's husband single divorce petition under s. 53 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Instead, she had erroneously proceeded to file an application to add a co-respondent who she alleged was in an adulterous relationship with the petitioner husband, but did not particularise the alleged adulterous relationship and did not provide any cogent materials of evidence in which to anchor the said allegation. There was thus absolutely nothing on terms of facts or corroboration to even satisfy a reasonable and preliminary threshold of evidence to invite the court to inquire into the matter in order to allow the proposed joinder with the inclusion of the named party as a co-respondent.
Teoh CY Kuan v. Lee Lai San [2020] 4 CLJ 432 [HC]
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Petition - Petitioner husband filed divorce petition under s. 53 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act) 1976 - Respondent wife responded by filing application to add co-respondent alleged to be in adulterous relationship with husband - Whether application wrong in law and untenable - Whether alleged adulterous relationship particularised - Whether there was failure to provide foundation for application - Failure to answer petition for divorce - Whether there was failure to comply with provisions under Divorce And Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 and Rules of Court 2012 - Whether action taken by wife contrary to normal, established and regulated practise in matrimonial proceedings
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ J
- For the petitioner husband - N Ravi Rajan; M/s Ravi Rajan & Assocs
- For the respondent wife - CY Kuan; M/s Arden Kuan & Co
LNS Article(s)
FORCE MAJEURE IN THE AGE OF COVID [Read excerpt]
by Alex Anton Netto* [2020] 1 LNS(A) xlviUNLEASHING THE POTENTIAL OF SADAQAH* [Read excerpt]
by Apnizan Abdullah [2020] 1 LNS(A) xlivBOARD OF DIRECTORS' RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LEGAL AND EVIDENTIAL CHALLENGES IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
by Muhammad Umar bin Abdul Razak[i], Nurus Sakinatul Fikriah binti Mohd Shith Putera[ii], Mazlina Mahali[iii] [2020] 1 LNS(A) xlvANNUAL KALISHER LECTURE*
MIND-READING: NEUROSCIENCE AND THE LAW** [Read excerpt]
by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE [2020] 1 LNS(A) xlii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | - |
| ACT 826 | Food Donors Protection Act 2020 | 31 March 2020 [PU(B) 166/2020] | - |
| ACT 825 | Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 | 31 January 2020 | - |
| ACT 824 | Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 | 1 April 2020 [PU(B) 119/2020] | - |
| ACT 823 | Finance Act 2019 | Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 22, Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 27, Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 29, Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 35, Finance Act 2010 [Act 702] see s 37 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 39 | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1617 | Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 590 |
| ACT A1616 | Central Bank of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 701 |
| ACT A1615 | Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 177 |
| ACT A1614 | Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 10 February 2020 - para 2(a) and s 13 and 15; Year of assessment 2020 and subsequent years of assessment - para 2(b) and s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14; 1 January 2019 - s 8 | ACT 445 |
| ACT A1613 | Carriage of Goods by Sea (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Foce | ACT 527 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 128/2020 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Premium Systems In Respect of Deposit-Taking Members) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 28 April 2020 | Assessment year of 2020 | PU(A) 34/2011 |
| PU(A) 127/2020 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Disclosure Requirements for Trust Accounts and Joint Accounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 28 April 2020 | Assessment year of 2020 | PU(A) 418/2012 |
| PU(A) 126/2020 | Employees Provident Fund (Fund Management Institution) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 28 April 2020 | 1 May 2020 until 30 April 2021 | PU(A) 381/2016 |
| PU(A) 125/2020 | Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 | 24 April 2020 | 30 April 2020 | PU(A) 401/1989 |
| PU(A) 124/2020 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Sakilan Sandakan Berhad) (Reappointment) Order 2020 | 24 April 2020 | 17 November 2017 | ACT 502 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 215/2020 | Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 | 24 April 2020 | 1 May 2020 to 31 May 2020 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 214/2020 | Notice of Termination of Assumption of Control (Koperasi Sakilan Sandakan Berhad) | 24 April 2020 | 25 April 2020 | ACT 502 |
| PU(B) 213/2020 | Notice of Completion of Assumption of Control (Koperasi Belia Nasional Berhad) | 23 April 2020 | 24 April 2020 | ACT 502 |
| PU(B) 212/2020 | Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 | 23 April 2020 | 24 April 2020 to 7 May 2020 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 211/2020 | Declaration Under Section 3 | 22 April 2020 | 23 April 2020 | ACT 537 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 34/2011 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Premium Systems in Respect of Deposit-Taking Members) Regulations 2011 | PU(A) 128/2020 | Assessment year of 2020 | Regulations 3, 5, 6 and 7; Schedule |
| PU(A) 327/1993 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Pengkompaunan Kesalahan-Kesalahan) 1993 | PU(A) 134/2020 | 29 April 2020 | Jadual Pertama |
| PU(A) 418/2012 | Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Disclosure Requirements For Trust Accounts and Joint Accounts) Regulations 2012 | PU(A) 127/2020 | Assessment year of 2020 | Regulations 4 and 5 |
| PU(A) 381/2016 | Employees Provident Fund (Fund Management Institution) Regulations 2016 | PU(A) 126/2020 | 1 May 2020 until 30 April 2021 | Schedule |
| PU(B) 470/2017 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members of the National Wages Consultative Council | PU(B) 210/2020 | 23 April 2020 | First Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 122/2020 | Companies (Exemption) Order 2020 | PU(A) 123/2020 | 24 April 2020 |
| PU(A) 309/2009 | Price Control (Fixing of Maximum Price) (No. 2) Order 2009 | PU(A) 93/2020 | 20 March 2020 |
| PU(A) 77/2020 | Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2020 | PU(A) 84/2020 | 1 March 2020 |
| PU(A) 451/1999 | Environmental Quality (Refrigerant Management) Regulations 1999 | PU(A) 79/2020 | 1 June 2020 |
| PU(A) 132/2019 | Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2019 | PU(A) 77/2020 | 24 February 2020 |