|
Issue #42/2020
08 October 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
|
ABDULLAH ATAN v. PP & OTHER APPEALS [2020] 9 CLJ 151
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HA
[CRIMINAL APPEALS NO: 05(M)-56-02-2019(J), 05(M)-205-09-2018(W), 05(M)-206-09-2018(W & 05(LB)-207-09-2018(W)]
26 AUGUST 2020
Section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), though intended to establish the threshold at the close of the prosecution's case, does not exclude the use of presumptions, inferences et cetera. Reading the section in its proper context and bearing in mind its legislative purpose, the phrase "credible evidence proving each and every ingredient of the offence" in the section can only mean that the prosecution may prove each ingredient of the offence either by adducing direct evidence of that ingredient, or adducing credible circumstantial evidence and inferring therefrom the ingredient or adducing credible evidence of the relevant basic facts and invoking thereby a statutory presumption that the ingredient exists. In the premise, it must follow, in a charge of drug trafficking under s. 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA), that upon proof of actual or affirmative possession of the impugned drugs, which must necessarily have been established by credible evidence, and of the weight of the drugs having exceeded the statutory limit, the presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the Act may be invoked by the trial judge to establish a prima facie case under s. 180(4) of the CPC. Section 180(4) CPC and s. 37(da) DDA in any case must be read harmoniously. Applying the doctrine of harmonious construction to the provisions would limit 'credible evidence' to the actual finding of possession, and once that is established, it would invoke the presumption of trafficking as adverted to in the DDA provision.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution - Prima facie case - Charges under s. 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA') - Presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of DDA - Whether constitutes credible evidence for prosecution to make out prima facie case under s. 180(4) of Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') - Whether prosecution required to prove each ingredient of offence by credible offence under s. 180(4) of CPC - Whether reading s. 180(4) CPC with exclusion of presumptions unsustainable
DR LOURDES DAVA RAJ CURUZ DURAI RAJ v. DR MILTON LUM SIEW WAH & ANOR [2020] 9 CLJ 192
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-118-12-2018(W)]
29 JULY 2020
An adverse order issued against a person without him being notified of proceedings initiated against him is a nullity and ought to be set aside. Where therefore a medical practitioner, in an application for judicial review and in a subsequent appeal against the order made therein, has not been made a party either to the application or the appeal, and has not been heard in both proceedings, but yet an order was made that he was guilty of a breach of professional doctor-patient confidentiality, the order has clearly breached the rules of natural justice and ought to be nullified. Such an order, in further consonance with the sacrosanct right to be heard, may still be nullified even when the proceedings in question have already come to an end.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Intervention - Leave to intervene in proceedings - Applicant charged by Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC') for infamous conduct in professional respect - Charge dismissed by MMC - Complainant commenced judicial review against MMC's decision - Applicant not included as party - High Court dismissed application but Court of Appeal granted declaratory reliefs sought by complainant - Applicant applied to intervene in proceedings - Whether applicant adversely affected by declaratory reliefs granted - Whether order null and ought to be set aside - Whether applicant deprived of right to be heard at hearing where order was made - Whether deprivation a breach of rules of natural justice - Whether proceedings had come to end - Whether applicant ought to be allowed to set aside order
-
Liu Yanzhen v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1230 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Liu Yanzhen [2017] 1 LNS 2053
-
Poratha Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Technofit Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 941 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Poratha Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Technofit Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 271
Legal Network Series
|
WORTHY BUILDERS SDN BHD lwn. SN AKMIDA HOLDINGS SDN BHD Kegagalan plaintif untuk mengemukakan butiran tuntutan yang jelas dan spesifik di dalam pliding tidak mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah dan kelompongan tersebut boleh menjadi asas untuk permohonan pembatalan tuntutan oleh defendan. Kesilapan atau kelompongan di dalam pliding tidak boleh dibetulkan melalui afidavit di dalam sesuatu permohonan pembatalan tuntutan melainkan melalui pliding itu sendiri. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Kausa tindakan - Tuntutan di dalam disiplin pembinaan yang melibatkan pengiraan bahan dan nilai kerja yang sistematik dan konstruktif - Plaintif hanya menunjukkan butiran dan jumlah secara ringkas tanpa pengiraan - Sama ada plaintif telah mengemukakan butiran yang jelas dan spesifik di dalam pliding bagi tuntutannya - Sama ada plaintif telah mengambil sebarang inisiatif untuk meminda plidingnya bagi meremedikan sebarang kekeliruan yang timbul - Sama ada afidavit plaintif boleh membetulkan kesilapan atau kelompongan di dalam pliding - Sama ada tindakan plaintif telah mendedah kausa tindakan yang munasabah
|
|
|
HASHIM CHE JAAFAR lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN Penggantungan perintah tahanan adalah kesinambungan dan berterusan dengan perintah tahanan dan tempoh penggantungan perintah tahanan adalah bagi baki tempoh perintah tahanan. Justeru, tiada keperluan di bawah s. 7(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 bagi Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri untuk menyatakan secara khusus di dalam perintah penggantungan perintah tahanan tempoh dan tarikh tamat penggantungan perintah tahanan. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Perjalanan kuasa-kuasa pentadbiran - Semakan kehakiman - Pembatalan perintah pengawasan polis - Perintah tahanan telah digantung - Pemohon mendakwa tidak dimaklumkan tempoh dan tarikh tamat penggantungan perintah tahanan - Sama ada penggantungan perintah tahanan adalah kesinambungan dan berterusan dengan perintah tahanan - Sama ada tempoh penggantungan perintah tahanan adalah bagi baki tempoh perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan terhadap pemohon - Sama ada tempoh dan tarikh tamat penggantungan perintah tahanan perlu dinyatakan secara khusus di dalam perintah penggantungan tahanan - Sama ada penggantungan perintah tahanan dibuat selepas persidangan representasi yang efektif terhadap pemohon - Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985, s. 7(1)
|
|
|
PP lwn. BI BI JAN NUR QARIM & YANG LAIN Kesalahan mencederakan sehingga menyebabkan kematian si mati adalah merupakan satu perbuatan yang kejam dan keji; justeru, pengakuan bersalah tertuduh serta kepentingan tertuduh yang lain tidak seharusnya diberikan pertimbangan secara melulu apabila menentukan tempoh hukuman pemenjaraan. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghukuman - Pemenjaraan - Pengakuan bersalah - Homisid salah yang tidak terjumlah kepada pembunuhan - Perbuatan mencederakan si mati sehingga menyebabkan kematian - Kecederaan yang dialami si mati akibat beberapa kecederaan tikaman - Si mati mengalami kesengsaraan emosi dan kesakitan fizikal yang dahsyat sebelum kematian - Sama ada jenayah yang mendatangkan kecederaan sehingga menyebabkan kematian merupakan satu perbuatan yang kejam dan tidak berperikemanusiaan - Sama ada perbuatan kejam tertuduh adalah amat berat - Sama ada pengakuan bersalah dan kepentingan tertuduh yang lain wajar dipertimbangkan
|
|
|
ROSMANAN ABD RAHMAN lwn. PP Tempoh hukuman pemenjaraan yang lebih lama wajar dikenakan ke atas tertuduh yang tidak insaf selepas menjalani hukuman bagi kesalahan lampau apabila tertuduh mencederakan mangsa yang sama dengan kejam sehingga menyebabkan kematian. Justeru, hukuman pemenjaraan yang lebih lama akan memberikan kesedaran sebenar kepada tertuduh dan melindungi kepentingan awam. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghukuman - Pemenjaraan - Kesalahan di bawah s. 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan - Kewujudan rekod kesalahan lampau tertuduh yang melibatkan mangsa yang sama - Tertuduh mencederakan mangsa kanak-kanak dengan kejam sehingga menyebabkan kematian - Sama ada hukuman yang setimpal ke atas tertuduh wajar dijatuhkan bagi melindungi kepentingan awam dan berbentuk pencegahan - Sama ada pengakuan bersalah tertuduh harus dipertimbangkan - Sama ada hukuman penjara yang lebih lama akan memberikan kesederan sebenar kepada tertuduh
|
|
|
KONG YIN SIONG & ANOR v. CHIN CHEE FUI In a minority oppression petition, a winding-up order is appropriate where the relationship between shareholders has deteriorated beyond repair and where the majority shareholders have failed to exhaust options to purchase all minority shareholders' shares by a certain deadline. COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Appeal against winding-up - Winding-up order made in minority oppression petition - Opposition by majority shareholders - Relationship between shareholders beyond repair - Judge stipulating that company shall be wound-up if majority shareholders do not purchase all of minority shareholders' shares at a fair value by a certain deadline - Winding-up order made on premise that there was no buyout of shares - Whether winding-up order was rightly made
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 9 (Part 2)
Section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), though intended to establish the threshold at the close of the prosecution's case, does not exclude the use of presumptions, inferences et cetera. Reading the section in its proper context and bearing in mind its legislative purpose, the phrase "credible evidence proving each and every ingredient of the offence" in the section can only mean that the prosecution may prove each ingredient of the offence either by adducing direct evidence of that ingredient, or adducing credible circumstantial evidence and inferring therefrom the ingredient or adducing credible evidence of the relevant basic facts and invoking thereby a statutory presumption that the ingredient exists. In the premise, it must follow, in a charge of drug trafficking under s. 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA), that upon proof of actual or affirmative possession of the impugned drugs, which must necessarily have been established by credible evidence, and of the weight of the drugs having exceeded the statutory limit, the presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the Act may be invoked by the trial judge to establish a prima facie case under s. 180(4) of the CPC. Section 180(4) CPC and s. 37(da) DDA in any case must be read harmoniously. Applying the doctrine of harmonious construction to the provisions would limit 'credible evidence' to the actual finding of possession, and once that is established, it would invoke the presumption of trafficking as adverted to in the DDA provision.
Abdullah Atan v. PP & Other Appeal [2020] 9 CLJ 151 [FC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution - Prima facie case - Charges under s. 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA') - Presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of DDA - Whether constitutes credible evidence for prosecution to make out prima facie case under s. 180(4) of Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') - Whether prosecution required to prove each ingredient of offence by credible offence under s. 180(4) of CPC - Whether reading s. 180(4) CPC with exclusion of presumptions unsustainable
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
(Criminal Appeal No: 05(M)-56-02-2019(J))
- For the appellant - Teh Poh Teik & Sukhaimi Mashud; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
- For the respondent - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar & Asmah Musa; DPPs
(Criminal Appeal No: 05(M)-205-09-2018(W)
- For the appellant - Teh Poh Teik & Sukhaimi Mashud; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
- For the respondent - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar & Nahra Dollah; DPPs
(Criminal Appeal No: 05(M)-206-09-2018(W))
- For the appellant - Kitson Foong & Chew Jee San; M/s Kit & Assocs
- For the respondent - Hanim Mohd Rashid; DPP
(Criminal Appeal No: 05(LB)-207-09-2018(W))
- For the appellant - How May Ling; DPP
- For the respondent - Kamarul Hisham & Syafiqah Sofian; M/s The Chambers of Kamarul Hisham & Hasnal Rezua
The challenge by a proprietor of a parcel unit in a strata development against the award of the President of Strata Management Tribunal on the grounds that the President had breached the rules of natural justice by depriving the applicant of the right to be heard cannot be sustained in the absence of the factual premise upon which the challenge was founded; Remedies under judicial review are discretionary in nature and would not be available ex debito justitae even if an error of law was proven; more so in the clear absence of substantial injustice.
Boniface Lobo Robert V Lobo & Anor v. Tribunal Pengurusan Strata, Putrajaya & Ors [2020] 9 CLJ 176 [FC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Setting aside decision of Strata Management Tribunal - Whether decision made in breach of rules of natural justice - Whether applicant given fair hearing - Whether accorded fair opportunity to present evidence and arguments - Whether remedies available ex debito justitiae where applicant able to demonstrate error of law - Whether decision of Tribunal correct
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
- For the appellants - Gopal Sri Ram, Yasmeen Soh, Raveena Kaur & Khalis Isma-Alif; M/s Chooi, Saw & Lim
- For the respondents - Wong Chong Wah, Wong Chun-Keat, Chan Pei Mun; M/s Wong & Wong
An adverse order issued against a person without him being notified of proceedings initiated against him is a nullity and ought to be set aside. Where therefore a medical practitioner, in an application for judicial review and in a subsequent appeal against the order made therein, has not been made a party either to the application or the appeal, and has not been heard in both proceedings, but yet an order was made that he was guilty of a breach of professional doctor-patient confidentiality, the order has clearly breached the rules of natural justice and ought to be nullified. Such an order, in further consonance with the sacrosanct right to be heard, may still be nullified even when the proceedings in question have already come to an end.
Dr Lourdes Dava Raj Curuz Durai Raj v. Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 9 CLJ 192 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Intervention - Leave to intervene in proceedings - Applicant charged by Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC') for infamous conduct in professional respect - Charge dismissed by MMC - Complainant commenced judicial review against MMC's decision - Applicant not included as party - High Court dismissed application but Court of Appeal granted declaratory reliefs sought by complainant - Applicant applied to intervene in proceedings - Whether applicant adversely affected by declaratory reliefs granted - Whether order null and ought to be set aside - Whether applicant deprived of right to be heard at hearing where order was made - Whether deprivation a breach of rules of natural justice - Whether proceedings had come to end - Whether applicant ought to be allowed to set aside order
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
- For the appellant - Lambert Rasa-Ratnam & Chan Mun Yew; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
- For the 1st respondent - Anit Kaur Randhawa & Phang See Eng; M/s Asbir Hira Singh & Co
- For the 2nd respondent - Gurdev Singh Bal; M/s Irmohizam Gurdev & Co
When an arbitration award is issued in breach of the rules of natural justice, and the breach has a materiality and causative effect on the outcome of the arbitration, the entire arbitration award ought to be set aside. The breach must be shown to be significant or serious such as to have an impact. Prejudice, though a relevant consideration, is not a requirement.
Master Mulia Sdn Bhd v. Sigur Rus Sdn Bhd [2020] 9 CLJ 213 [FC]
ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Appeal against - Breach of natural justice - Whether sufficient in gravity to set aside award - Whether ss. 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration Act 2005 require prejudice to be established - Whether breach had materiality and causative effect on outcome of arbitration - Whether entire award ought to be set aside
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
- For the appellant - Cyrus Das, Gan Khong Aik & Lee Sze Ching; M/s Gan Partnership
- For the respondent - Malik Imtiaz, Surendra Ananth & Wong Ming Yen; M/s Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
(1) Kausa tindakan kecuaian terhadap pihak berkuasa yang didakwa gagal menjaga kebajikan dan keselamatan si mati di dalam lokap sehingga menyebabkan si mati diserang, cedera dan meninggal dunia, adalah bermula dari tarikh kematian si mati dan bukan dari tarikh keputusan Inkues. Tuntutan yang hanya bangkit setelah luput tempoh masa yang dibenarkan di bawah undang-undang adalah terhalang di bawah s. 2(a) Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948 dan adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah yang mewajarkan tuntutan-tuntutan dibatalkan di bawah semua cabang yang terdapat dalam A. 18 k. 19(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.
(2) Pemohon-pemohon yang gagal mendapatkan Surat Kuasa Mentadbir untuk mewakili estet si mati ketika membawa tindakan bukan dianggap wasi kepada si mati, dan ini menyebabkan pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai locus standi.
Kaliamah Rajan & Yang Lain lwn. Superintendan Wooi Kooi Cheang, Ketua Polis Daerah Tampin, Negeri Sembilan & Yang Lain [2020] 9 CLJ 252 [CA]
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang membenarkan pembatalan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan perayu-perayu - Perayu-perayu memplidkan bahawa responden-responden gagal menjaga kebajikan dan keselamatan si mati di dalam lokap dan menuntut ganti rugi-ganti rugi - Sama ada tindakan perayu-perayu difailkan di luar had masa - Sama ada perayu-perayu mempunyai locus standi - Sama ada tuntutan perayu-perayu suatu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 18 k. 19(1) - Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948, s. 2(a)
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Locus standi - Writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan - Perayu-perayu memplidkan bahawa responden-responden gagal menjaga kebajikan dan keselamatan si mati di dalam lokap dan menuntut ganti rugi-ganti rugi - Sama ada perayu-perayu wasi kepada si mati - Sama ada perayu-perayu mematuhi pra-syarat s. 7(2) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 dan A. 76 k. 2(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada tindakan 'obviously unsustainable' sehingga mewajarkan pembatalannya
HAD MASA: Tindakan - Kausa tindakan - Writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan - Perayu-perayu memplidkan bahawa responden-responden gagal menjaga kebajikan dan keselamatan si mati di dalam lokap dan menuntut ganti rugi-ganti rugi - Sama ada writ saman difailkan dalam tempoh masa yang dibenarkan - Sama ada kausa tindakan bermula dari tarikh kematian si mati - Sama ada perayu-perayu perlu menunggu keputusan inkues sebelum memulakan tindakan ke atas responden-responden - Sama ada tuntutan perayu-perayu terhalang di bawah s. 2(a) Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948
ZALEHA YUSOF HMR
YAACOB MD SAM HMR
LAU BEE LAN HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - Manoharan Tevadasin; T/n Ong & Partners
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - Kamal Azira Hassan & Nadiatul Syima Ismail; PKP
A land owner whose land has been compulsorily acquired has lost all rights and use of the land and it is only right that he be adequately compensated as per the guarantee granted by art. 13(2) of the Federal Constitution. For land acquisition cases in the State of Sabah, however, the High Court, pursuant to s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 69), is specifically empowered to award interest when awarding compensation for land acquisition, at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum, calculated from the date upon which the authorised officer entered into possession of the land acquired until the date of the payment of the compensation awarded.
Douglas Cristo Primus Sikayun v. The Government Of The State Of Sabah & Anor [2020] 9 CLJ 273 [HC]
LAND LAW: Acquisition - Compensation - Interest - Land compulsorily acquired by State Government - Delay in payment of compensation sum - Whether land owner entitled to statutory interest of 6% per annum in compensation sum from date of acquisition till date of full payment of compensation sum - Land Acquisition Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 69), ss. 3, 16, 19 & 23
LEONARD DAVID SHIM JC
- For the plaintiff - M/s Lee & Thong
- For the defendant - Jabatan Peguam Besar Negeri Sabah
The application for forfeiture pursuant to ss. 56(1) and 61(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 would not succeed if it could be shown that the monies received were for valuable consideration and in good faith, such as, for example, where the monies were received for a valid purchase of jewellery and the transaction was done in the ordinary course of business.
PP v. Habib Jewels Sdn Bhd [2020] 9 CLJ 283 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Sections 56(1) & 61(2) - Forfeiture of monies - Whether property sought to be forfeited was subject matter of offence of money laundering or proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether disclosure of movements of monies sufficient to prove that property was proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether monies received as valuable consideration in good faith for transaction of sale - Whether monies received for lawful and legitimate purpose - Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, s. 23(1)
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J
- For the applicant - Allan Suman, Maziah Mohaide & Abdul Rashid Sulaiman; DPP
- For the respondent - Khoo Guan Huat & Gooi Yang Shuh; M/s Skrine
LNS Article(s)
TRUST ISSUES WITH RETENTION SUM IN THE TIMES OF COVID-19 [Read excerpt]
by Balan Nair Thamodaran* Naveen Sri Kantha** [2020] 1 LNS(A) cvREVIEW ON THE BARRIERS IN TREATING THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AMID THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY [Read excerpt]
by Nur Syakirah Binti Mohd Adnan* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cviJUDICIAL MANAGEMENT IN A NUTSHELL: FROM APPLICATION UNTIL OBTAINING THE JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER [Read excerpt]
by Justin Wee Kim Fang* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cviiMORE THAN A LAWYER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LAWYERS IN THE DISRUPTION OF THE LEGAL INDUSTRY* [Read excerpt]
by Ingrid Bremers** [2020] 1 LNS(A) civ
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) 270/2020 | Ministers of The Federal Government (No. 3) (Amendment) Order 2020 | 15 September 2020 | 1 March 2020 - subsubpara 2(a)(i); 10 March 2020 - subsubpara 2(a)(ii) and subpara 2(b) | PU(A) 201/2020 |
| PU(A) 269/2020 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) 2002 (Amendment) Order 2020 | 8 September 2020 | Year of assessment 2018 and shall continue to be in operation until the year of assessment 2020 | PU(A) 57/2002 |
| PU(A) 267/2020 | Income Tax (Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information) (Amendment) Rules 2020 | 4 September 2020 | 5 September 2020 | PU(A) 355/2016 |
| PU(A) 266/2020 | Labuan Business Activity Tax (Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 4 September 2020 | 5 September 2020 | PU(A) 20/2018 |
| PU(A) 265/2020 | Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) (No. 4) Order 2020 | 3 September 2020 | 4 September 2020 | ACT 96 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 444/2020 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 201719 Mukim Setapak | 27 August 2020 | 28 August 2020 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 443/2020 | Reservation of Land For A Public Purpose For Lot 81522 Mukim Batu | 27 August 2020 | 28 August 2020 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 442/2020 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 481706 Mukim Kuala Lumpur | 27 August 2020 | 28 August 2020 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 441/2020 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 480897 Mukim Kuala Lumpur | 27 August 2020 | 28 August 2020 | ACT 56/1965 |
| PU(B) 440/2020 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 20004 City Kuala Lumpur | 27 August 2020 | 28 August 2020 | ACT 56/1965 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 201/2020 | Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 3) Order 2020 | PU(A) 270/2020 | 1 March 2020 - subsubpara. 2(a)(i); 10 March 2020 - subsubpara. 2(a)(ii) and subpara. 2(b) | Schedule |
| PU(A) 57/2002 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) Order 2002 | PU(A) 269/2020 | Year of assessment 2018 and shall continue to be in operation until the year of assessment 2020 | Paragraph 4 |
| PU(A) 355/2016 | Income Tax (Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information) Rules 2016 | PU(A) 267/2020 | 5 September 2020 | Schedule 2 |
| PU(A) 20/2018 | Labuan Business Activity Tax (Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information) Regulations 2018 | PU(A) 266/2020 | 5 September 2020 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 488/1986 | Printing of Qur'anic Texts Regulations 1986 | PU(A) 264/2020 | 4 September 2020 | Regulations 3 and 4 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 97/2020 | Motor Vehicles (Exemption) Rules 2020 | PU(A) 251/2020 | 1 September 2020 |
| PU(A) 248/1998 | Rubber Industry (Replanting) Fund (Cess on Rubber Sold to Manufacturers) Order 1998 | PU(A) 232/2020 | 1 October 2020 - Peninsular Malaysia only |
| PU(B) 663/2018 | Appointment of Member of the Advisory Board | PU(B) 388/2020 | 10 August 2020 until 9 August 2022 |
| PU(B) 140/2020 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Director General of the Board | PU(B) 373/2020 | 1 June 2020 |
| 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 |