|
Issue #37/2020
03 September 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
|
BIG MAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD v. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD [2020] 8 CLJ 27
HIGH COURT MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: JA-22NCVC-138-07-2016]
30 APRIL 2020
Whilst Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) as the licence holder for electricity supply in Malaysia may disconnect electricity supply from a premise upon allegations of meter tampering and upon the powers granted it under s. 38 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA), it cannot exercise such power once the tampering was no longer extant or has been halted or rectified. Resorting to such disconnection is illegal and in breach of the ESA, and may expose TNB to liability under s. 74 of the Contracts Act 1950. Such unlawful conduct may also constitute corporate malfeasance on the part of TNB and may thus attract liability for general, special and exemplary damages.
UTILITIES: Electricity - Supply - Disconnection - Claim for damages - Allegations of meter-tampering at premises of registered user of electricity - Electricity supplier disconnected supply of electricity to premises after installing new meter - Whether there was any meter-tampering - Whether user received written notice for disconnection of electricity supply - Whether disconnection of electricity supply legal - Whether officers of electricity supplier committed trespass to user's premises - Whether disconnection of electricity supply caused losses and damages to user - Whether electricity supplier's actions amounted to interference in tort towards user and user's business - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1) & (3)
TORT: Trespass - Damages - Claim for - Allegations of meter-tampering at premises of registered user of electricity - Officers of electricity supplier entered into user's premises at wee hours of morning without presence of user's representative - Whether action amounted to trespass - Whether officers of electricity supplier authorised to enter premises without user's permission
TORT: Defamation - Damages - Claim for - Allegations of meter-tampering at premises of registered user of electricity - Officers of electricity supplier made statements to third party - Whether statements defamatory in nature and/or malicious - Whether statements referred to user's reputation - Whether statement published to third person
MACH 8 SDN BHD v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ANOR [2020] 8 CLJ 79
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: BA-25-6-01-2017]
10 MARCH 2020
The State Authority, having identified the land to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1961 after the conclusion of a Land Inquiry and after issuing Form K which precisely identified the location and size of the land, cannot thereafter amend the land area so identified for acquisition by issuing or publishing an amended Form D in the Gazette. The correctional declaration made after the issuance of Form K is procedurally improper and ultra vires the provisions of the 1961 Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Review of decision by State Authority and Land Administrator - Acquisition of land - Amendment to declaration of intended acquisition after conclusion of land enquiry and issuance of Form K - Whether allowed - Whether procedural requirements of Land Acquisition Act 1960 must be strictly complied with - Whether declaration procedurally improper and abuse of process - Whether State Authority and Land Administrator acted in excess of jurisdiction - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 8
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Objection to acquisition - Amendment to declaration of intended acquisition after conclusion of land enquiry and issuance of Form K - Whether amendment could be made after declaration of intended acquisition has been published - Whether amendment to defective declaration could only be made within two years from first declaration - Whether declaration procedurally improper and abuse of process - Whether procedural requirements of Land Acquisition Act 1960 must be strictly complied with - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 8
TENGKU DATO' IBRAHIM PETRA TENGKU INDRA PETRA & ORS v.
PERDANA PETROLEUM BHD [2020] 8 CLJ 109
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
S NANTHA BALAN J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCC-391-08-2018]
29 MAY 2019
A company director who successfully defended a suit instituted by the company against him for purported breaches of director's duties, and who was exonerated from wrongdoings by the court, is entitled to invoke s. 289(3) and (4) of the Companies Act 2016 (the Act), and or the relevant provisions of the company's Constitution or Articles of Association as the case may be, to seek indemnity from the company for the legal costs and expenses thus incurred by him, notwithstanding that the events that have given rise to the filing of the relevant suits might have occurred prior to 31st January 2017, the date of the coming into force of the Act, provided that the final judgment in his favour was granted post 31st January 2017, for, in such circumstance, it was the date of the final judgment that constituted the "happening of an event".
Where therefore an Article of Association of the company very clearly undertakes to indemnify a director for legal expenses in "defending any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in respect of any negligence, default, breach of duty or trust" and the director, having been sued for acting qua directors in disposing of the controlling block of shares in the company but had successfully defended the suit and the appeals therefrom, the company, upon the proper reading of both the Article of Association in question and s. 289 of the Act, is duty bound to indemnify the director for the legal expenses incurred in defending the suit as well as the appeals. This said, it is also the law that the director's failure to previously seek an order for costs on an indemnity basis from the respective courts is not fatal to his subsequent claim for indemnity against the company.
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Indemnity - Claim for indemnity of costs incurred in defending suits - Whether article of association of company provided for claim for indemnity - Whether directors could rely on article of association - Whether directors ought to have sought order for costs on indemnity basis from courts - Whether claim could be made in separate proceedings - Whether directors within statutory right to obtain indemnity - Companies Act 2016, s. 289
-
Seow Hoon Hin v. Hartalega Holdings Berhad & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 779 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Seow Hoon Hin lwn. Hartalega Holdings Berhad & Yang Lain [2015] 1 LNS 1341
-
Macvilla Sdn Bhd v. Mervyn Peter Guan Yin Hui & Anor [2019] 1 LNS 949 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Macvilla Sdn Bhd v. Mervyn Peter Guan Yin Hui & Anor [Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman Guaman No: WA-25-196-07/2017]
Legal Network Series
|
SOO LIK DUO lwn. PP Kecederaan kritikal di kepala yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh ke atas bayi berusia 8 bulan adalah mencukupi untuk menyebabkan kematian, maka ia terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh tidak kira sama ada tertuduh berniat untuk menyebabkan kematian atau sebaliknya. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Seksyen 300(c) Kanun Keseksaan - Bencana tubuh yang menyebabkan kematian - Si mati merupakan bayi berusia 8 bulan - Kematian akibat penderaan - Kecederaan kritikal di bahagian kepala - Trauma berulang di kepala - Sama ada bencana tubuh yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh adalah mencukupi pada lazimnya untuk menyebabkan kematian - Sama ada terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh - Sama ada pertimbangan mengenai kesan bencana tubuh yang diniatkan harus dibuat secara objektif - Sama ada bencana tubuh yang dialami si mati adalah disengajakan
|
|
|
PP lwn. ARDI (W/INDONESIA) Penyeludupan migran adalah kesalahan yang amat serius dan hukuman pemenjaraan yang panjang adalah jelas memadai. Apabila jumlah migran yang diseludup adalah sangat besar dan tertuduh telah mengaut keuntungan wang maka, hukuman denda tidak memberikan pengajaran kepada tertuduh. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pendakwa raya - Hukuman penjara 3 tahun berkuat kuasa dari tarikh tangkap dan denda RM20,000 bagi kesalahan penyeludupan migran - Kesalahan yang amat serius - Jumlah migran yang terlibat adalah sangat besar - Penglibatan ejen penyamar sulit yang menggadai nyawa - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah jelas memadai - Sama ada hukuman denda berupaya memberikan pengajaran kepada tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh wajar diberikan diskaun dalam hukuman berikutan pengakuan salah bagi kesalahan berat
|
|
|
ABDULLAH ATAN lwn. PP Mahkamah boleh menerima masuk buku nota yang tidak ditandatangani tertuduh yang mengandungi kenyataan yang telah diberikan oleh tertuduh selepas kata-kata amaran dibacakan dan setelah keterangan lisan pegawai serbuan serta keterangan lain, termasuk keterangan membabitkan kelakuan tertuduh, diambil pertimbangan. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Dadah dijumpai di dalam rumah yang didiami tertuduh - Kunci rumah dalam milikan tertuduh ketika tangkapan - Dadah dijumpai dan dirampas atas panduan dan tunjuk arah oleh tertuduh - Tertuduh cuba melarikan diri ketika serbuan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan eksklusif dadah KETERANGAN: Kenyataan - Kebolehterimaan - Pendakwaan menyandar kepada kenyataan yang diberikan oleh tertuduh yang direkodkan di dalam buku nota ketika serbuan - Buku nota tidak ditandatangani tertuduh - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Tertuduh memberikan maklumat sehingga membawa kepada penemuan dadah - Kenyataan diberikan tertuduh selepas kata-kata amaran dibacakan - Sama ada hakim bicara dalam mensabitkan tertuduh telah mengambil kira keterangan lisan saksi sebelum menerima masuk buku nota yang mengandungi kenyataan yang diberikan tertuduh - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, s. 39B(1)(b) - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 27
|
|
|
NG KONG HOCK & ORS v. TAN PENG SON & ORS 1. It is unacceptable for majority shareholders to deny knowledge of the existence of a winding up petition when there was no error in the address stated in the petition and there was exchange of correspondence during the negotiations leading to a settlement agreement. 2. A summary judgment application under O. 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 will not be hindered merely due to the existence of third party proceedings commenced by the defendants against third parties. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Settlement agreement - Settlement agreement entered as a consequence of winding up petition filed by minority shareholders - Breach of terms of settlement agreement pertaining to payment for purchase of shares - Majority shareholders denied knowledge of winding up petition and settlement agreement - Whether prima facie case for summary judgment has been established - Whether denial of existence of winding up petition by majority shareholder acceptable - Whether parties did come to a settlement - Whether there are triable issues CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Principles and procedures - Existence of third party proceedings - Whether third party proceedings would hinder an application for summary judgment
|
|
|
SHANTI JEYAPALAN v. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM-PEGUAM & ANOR; MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA (INTERVENER) 1. A suspension order issued by the Advocates and and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ('DB') is a final order. Hence, a party aggrieved by the decision of the DB should exhaust his/her statutory remedy by filing an appeal to the High Court pursuant to s. 103E(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 instead of a judicial review application. 2. A judicial review application is unsustainable when the Court is not vested with jurisdiction to hear the application and when there are no special circumstances which enable the applicant to file such an application. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Judicial review application - Certiorari to set aside suspension order issued by Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ('DB') - Applicant failed to exhaust statutory remedy under s. 103E(1) of Legal Profession Act 1976 - Whether suspension order was final order - Whether applicant ought to have filed an appeal to High Court against decision of DB - Whether court has jurisdiction to entertain judicial review application - Whether judicial review application was sustainable - Whether there are special circumstances which enable applicant to file a judicial review application
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 8 (Part 1)
The fact that a case is complicated is no bar to the court to consider the applicability of O. 14A Rules of Court 2012 in relation to the questions of law posed, and a case involving a claim on NCR is no exception. Where a group of natives were claiming NCR over a parcel of land but pleaded no conflicting allegations of facts therein, and more, had made judicial admissions in the pleadings and the affidavits that their longhouse did not lie within the boundaries of the said land, that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the land, that they had amicably settled their differences with the plaintiff and that the said land was formerly under a timber licence with forestry activities being carried thereon, then an application for summary disposal of the case under O. 14A may be appropriate and justified; quite clearly, the case was one where the issues of fact were undisputed and the admissions made were comprehensive enough to determine the core issues of the claim summarily.
Ramba Bungkong & Ors v. Asco Green Sdn Bhd [2020] 8 CLJ 1 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary disposal - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A - Determination of preliminary questions of law - Whether applications suitable to be disposed of summarily - Whether pleadings and affidavits comprehensive and sufficient to determine and dispose of core issues in claim - Whether action ought to go for proper trial - Whether application under O. 14A appropriate
LAND LAW: Native customary rights - Claim for - Whether claims over native customary rights involved critical issues of facts and law - Whether action ought to go for proper trial - Whether claimants had cause of action - Whether pleadings and affidavits comprehensive and sufficient to determine and dispose of core issues in claim - Summary disposal - Whether application under O. 14A of Rules of Court 2012 appropriate
BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
(Civil Appeal No: Q-01(IM)(NCVC)-476-12-2017)
- For the appellants - Simon Siah SY Jen; M/s Simon Siah, Chua & Chow Advocs
- For the respondents - Mohd Adzrul Adzlan; SLA
(Civil Appeal No: Q-02(IM)(NCVC)-2507-12-2017)
- For the appellants - Simon Siah SY Jen; M/s Simon Siah, Chua & Chow Advocs
- For the respondent - Gabriel Kok; M/s Khoo & Co
Whilst Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) as the licence holder for electricity supply in Malaysia may disconnect electricity supply from a premise upon allegations of meter tampering and upon the powers granted it under s. 38 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA), it cannot exercise such power once the tampering was no longer extant or has been halted or rectified. Resorting to such disconnection is illegal and in breach of the ESA, and may expose TNB to liability under s. 74 of the Contracts Act 1950. Such unlawful conduct may also constitute corporate malfeasance on the part of TNB and may thus attract liability for general, special and exemplary damages.
Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2020] 8 CLJ 27 [HC]
UTILITIES: Electricity - Supply - Disconnection - Claim for damages - Allegations of meter-tampering at premises of registered user of electricity - Electricity supplier disconnected supply of electricity to premises after installing new meter - Whether there was any meter-tampering - Whether user received written notice for disconnection of electricity supply - Whether disconnection of electricity supply legal - Whether officers of electricity supplier committed trespass to user's premises - Whether disconnection of electricity supply caused losses and damages to user - Whether electricity supplier's actions amounted to interference in tort towards user and user's business - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1) & (3)
TORT: Trespass - Damages - Claim for - Allegations of meter-tampering at premises of registered user of electricity - Officers of electricity supplier entered into user's premises at wee hours of morning without presence of user's representative - Whether action amounted to trespass - Whether officers of electricity supplier authorised to enter premises without user's permission
TORT: Defamation - Damages - Claim for - Allegations of meter-tampering at premises of registered user of electricity - Officers of electricity supplier made statements to third party - Whether statements defamatory in nature and/or malicious - Whether statements referred to user's reputation - Whether statement published to third person
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J
- For the plaintiff - P Mithran, TS Yoon, Lee Jing Ni & YY Lim; M/s Kerk & Partners
- For the defendant - Izatunlina Jamaludin & Mohd Amierul Sharafi Shaharizam; M/s Othman Hashim & Co
(1) There is no requirement for the mandatory registration of non-Muslim marriages under s. 2(3) of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 ('ESSA') and thus, a widow, despite the non-registration of her marriage under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, is eligible to 'survivor's pension' as the 'dependent' of the insured person.
(2) Based on the doctrine of stare decisis, where no written grounds delivered by the court for its decision and the ratio could not be determined, the decision may not bind the later courts.
Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v. Wong Ton Feng [2020] 8 CLJ 67 [HC]
LABOUR LAW: Social security - Claim - Claim for 'survivor's pension' by widow of deceased - Customary marriage not registered under Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('LRA') - Whether wife of 'insured person' is 'dependant' of insured person within s. 2(3) of Employees' Social Security Act 1969 ('ESSA') - Whether appeal involved 'substantial question of law' - Whether registration of non-Muslim marriages under LRA mandatory requirement - Whether reliance under LRA on construction of definition of 'dependant' in s. 2(3) of ESSA misplaced
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial precedent - Stare decisis - Federal Court reversed decision of Court of Appeal - No written grounds provided by Federal Court - Whether decision of Federal Court not binding under doctrine of stare decisis
WONG KIAN KHEONG J
- For the appellant - Diba Natalia Ishak; M/s Skrine
- For the respondent - In person
The State Authority, having identified the land to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1961 after the conclusion of a Land Inquiry and after issuing Form K which precisely identified the location and size of the land, cannot thereafter amend the land area so identified for acquisition by issuing or publishing an amended Form D in the Gazette. The correctional declaration made after the issuance of Form K is procedurally improper and ultra vires the provisions of the 1961 Act.
MACH 8 Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2020] 8 CLJ 79 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Review of decision by State Authority and Land Administrator - Acquisition of land - Amendment to declaration of intended acquisition after conclusion of land enquiry and issuance of Form K - Whether allowed - Whether procedural requirements of Land Acquisition Act 1960 must be strictly complied with - Whether declaration procedurally improper and abuse of process - Whether State Authority and Land Administrator acted in excess of jurisdiction - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 8
LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Objection to acquisition - Amendment to declaration of intended acquisition after conclusion of land enquiry and issuance of Form K - Whether amendment could be made after declaration of intended acquisition has been published - Whether amendment to defective declaration could only be made within two years from first declaration - Whether declaration procedurally improper and abuse of process - Whether procedural requirements of Land Acquisition Act 1960 must be strictly complied with - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 8
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA J
- For the applicant - David Mathews & Tina Francis; M/s Mathews Hun Lachimanan
- For the respondents - Etty Eliany Tesno; State Legal Advisor, Selangor
Watching brief:
- For the Projek Lintasan Sungai Besi - Ulu Klang Sdn Bhd - Bernice Sew; M/s Zain & Co
Under the Competition Act 2010 ('CA'), a proposed decision by the Competition Commission does not dispose of the rights of parties or alter such rights. It is not a final decision as the final decision is when the Commission decides on whether there is an infringement under ss. 39 and 40 of the CA or otherwise. A party who wishes to apply for leave for judicial review against a proposed decision must first exhaust the available domestic appeal process, failing which, the application may be deemed premature, frivolous and vexatious.
MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Suruhanjaya Persaingan [2020] 8 CLJ 94 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Application for leave - Judicial review against proposed decision of Competition Commission ('CC') - CC imposed penalty on applicants for abusing dominant position by imposing restrictive clause - Whether proposed decision final decision - Whether proposed decision disposed of rights of parties - Whether applicants exhausted domestic appeal process - Whether proposed decision amenable to judicial review - Whether court ought to exercise discretion to grant application of leave - Whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting granting of leave application - Whether application for leave premature - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 2(4)
COMPETITION LAW: Proposed decision - Judicial review against proposed decision of Competition Commission ('CC') - CC imposed penalty on applicants for abusing dominant position by imposing restrictive clause - Whether proposed decision final decision - Whether applicants exhausted domestic appeal process - Whether proposed decision amenable to judicial review -Competition Act 2010, ss. 36(1), 39, 40, 51(1)& 58(2)
WORDS & PHRASES: 'decision' - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether proposed decision under Competition Act 2010 final decision - Whether disposed of rights of parties
NORDIN HASSAN J
- For the applicants - Malik lmtiaz Sarwar, Shanthi Kandiah, Lim Yvonne & Khoo Suk Chyi; M/s Shanthi Kandiah Chambers
- For the respondent - Lim Chee Wee, Kwan Will Sen, Manshan Singh & Pakeeza Mohamad Junus; M/s Skrine
A company director who successfully defended a suit instituted by the company against him for purported breaches of director's duties, and who was exonerated from wrongdoings by the court, is entitled to invoke s. 289(3) and (4) of the Companies Act 2016 (the Act), and or the relevant provisions of the company's Constitution or Articles of Association as the case may be, to seek indemnity from the company for the legal costs and expenses thus incurred by him, notwithstanding that the events that have given rise to the filing of the relevant suits might have occurred prior to 31st January 2017, the date of the coming into force of the Act, provided that the final judgment in his favour was granted post 31st January 2017, for, in such circumstance, it was the date of the final judgment that constituted the "happening of an event".
Where therefore an Article of Association of the company very clearly undertakes to indemnify a director for legal expenses in "defending any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in respect of any negligence, default, breach of duty or trust" and the director, having been sued for acting qua directors in disposing of the controlling block of shares in the company but had successfully defended the suit and the appeals therefrom, the company, upon the proper reading of both the Article of Association in question and s. 289 of the Act, is duty bound to indemnify the director for the legal expenses incurred in defending the suit as well as the appeals. This said, it is also the law that the director's failure to previously seek an order for costs on an indemnity basis from the respective courts is not fatal to his subsequent claim for indemnity against the company.
Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra & Ors v. Perdana Petroleum Bhd [2020] 8 CLJ 109 [HC]
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Indemnity - Claim for indemnity of costs incurred in defending suits - Whether article of association of company provided for claim for indemnity - Whether directors could rely on article of association - Whether directors ought to have sought order for costs on indemnity basis from courts - Whether claim could be made in separate proceedings - Whether directors within statutory right to obtain indemnity - Companies Act 2016, s. 289
S NANTHA BALAN J
- For the plaintiffs - Alex De Silva, James Khong & Quek Yiing Huey; M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva
- For the defendant - Malik lmtiaz, Murali Sangaran & Khoo Suk Chyi; M/s Murali Sangaran
LNS Article(s)
DEDUCTIBILITY OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY A BUSINESS IN ITS RESTRUCTURING OR RETRENCHMENT EXERCISE* [Read excerpt]
by Sharon Lau Foong Yee [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxxixTHE MURKY WATERS OF DIGITAL CURRENCIES AND SHARIAH COMPLIANCE [Read excerpt]
by Jeremiah Rais* [2020] 1 LNS(A) xcWAQF ADMINISTRATION IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS [Read excerpt]
by Syed Aatif* [2020] 1 LNS(A) xci
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 Force | ACT 527 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 242/2020 | Langkawi International Yacht Registry (Registration of Yachts) Regulations (Amendment) 2020 | 27 August 2020 | 28 August 2020 | PU(A) 379/2003 |
| PU(A) 241/2020 | Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (Compounding of Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 27 August 2020 | 1 September 2020 | PU(A) 309/2011 |
| PU(A) 240/2020 | Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) (No. 3) Order 2020 | 26 August 2020 | 27 August 2020 | ACT 96 |
| PU(A) 239/2020 | Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 5) Order 2020 | 26 August 2020 | 28 August 2020 | ACT 378 |
| PU(A) 238/2020 | Weight Restrictions (Federal Roads) (Amendment) Order 2020 | 26 August 2020 | 27 August 2020 | PU(A) 478/1989 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 373/2020 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Director General of The Board | 7 August 2020 | 1 June 2020 | ACT 582 |
| PU(B) 372/2020 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of The Drug Control Authority | 7 August 2020 | 1 January 2020 | PU(A) 223/1984 |
| PU(B) 371/2020 | Notification of Values of Imported Completely Built-Up Motor Vehicles (Used) Under Section 12 | 6 August 2020 | 7 August 2020 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 370/2020 | Notification of Values of Imported Completely Built-Up Motor Vehicles (New) Under Section 12 | 6 August 2020 | 7 August 2020 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 369/2020 | Returns and Statements of Election Expenses - Pahang | 3 August 2020 | 4 August 2020 | ACT 5 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 309/2011 | Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2011 | PU(A) 241/2020 | 1 September 2020 | Regulation 2 |
| PU(A) 478/1989 | Weight Restrictions (Federal Roads) Order 1989 | PU(A) 238/2020 | 27 August 2020 | Second Schedule |
| ACT 371 | Registration of Pharmacists Act 1951 (Revised 1989) | PU(A) 236/2020 | 22 August 2020 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 327/1993 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 1993 | PU(A) 234/2020 | 20 August 2020 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 103/2017 | Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017 | PU(A) 231/2020 | 17 October 2020 | Second Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 211/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Medical Attendance and Maintenance of Person Removed to Quarantine Station) Regulations 2020 | PU(A) 233/2020 | 24 July 2020 |
| PU(A) 251/2006 | Entertainments Duty (Exemption) (No. 24) Order 2006 | PU(A) 204/2020 | 1 August 2020 |
| PU(A) 286/2015 | Customs Duties (Goods Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Among the Governments of the Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Republic of Korea) (ASEAN Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature) Order 2015 | PU(A) 202/2020 | 1 August 2020 |
| PU(A) 84/2020 | Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2020 | PU(A) 201/2020 | See paragraph 1(2) of this Order |
| PU(A) 476/2008 | Customs Duties (Goods Under Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership Among Member States of the ASEAN and Japan) Order 2008 [Revoked By PU(A) 191/2020] | PU(A) 191/2020 | 1 July 2020 |