|
Issue #48/2020
19 November 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
|
L&S COSMETICS AND TOILETRIES (M) SDN BHD v.
PRUDENTIAL CLINIC CARE SDN BHD [2020] 10 CLJ 206
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
KHADIJAH IDRIS J
[SUIT NO: 22NCC-42-01-2019]
30 JULY 2020
Placing of documents by mistake by the client's counsel in Part A of the bundle of documents instead of Part B ought not to be attributed to the client; thus, where an application to rectify the bundle of documents was made promptly, there was no evidence of mala fides and no miscarriage of justice occasioned to the parties which could not be compensated by costs, such an application may be allowed by the court.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Documents - Bundle - Agreed bundle - Amendment to issues to be tried - Application to move documents from Part A to Part B - Factors to be considered - Whether genuine mistake - Whether delay in application - Whether amendment provides unfair opportunity to renew claim - Whether facts and issues within knowledge of parties - Whether application would result in gross miscarriage of justice
-
Low Chiew Mun v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 671 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Low Chiew Mun [Criminal Trial No: 45B-09-06/2015]
-
Muhammad Irshaduddin Khalis Nasurudin v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 667 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Muhammad Irshaduddin Khalis Nasurudin [2017] 1 LNS 929
Legal Network Series
|
JOHN STEVEN NAVALINGGAM lwn. PP Faktor kepentingan awam menghendaki hukuman berbentuk pencegahan diberikan bagi kesalahan rogol untuk menghalang tertuduh daripada mengulangi kesalahannya dan orang lain daripada melakukan kesalahan yang sama. Justeru, hukuman penjara 14 tahun dan 5 kali sebatan bagi kesalahan rogol adalah wajar apabila mangsa merupakan isteri orang lain dan masih mengalami kesan trauma yang teruk. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman penjara 14 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan 5 kali sebatan bagi kesalahan rogol - Kesalahan serius - Hukuman dijatuhkan di akhir kes pembelaan - Mangsa merupakan isteri orang lain - Mangsa masih mengalami kesan trauma yang teruk - Faktor kepentingan awam - Sama ada hukuman berbentuk pencegahan harus diberikan daripada menghalang tertuduh daripada mengulangi kesalahannya dan orang lain daripada melakukan kesalahan yang sama - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah sesuai dan wajar dikekalkan dalam hal keadaan kes
|
|
|
PUSPANATHAN ANDDY lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN 1. Tindakan pemohon yang memperakukan penerimaan dan pemahaman isi kandungan perintah tahanan selepas diterangkan di dalam bahasa Melayu jelas menunjukkan bahawa pemohon telah memahami isi kandungan perintah tahanan dan hal-hal representasi ke lembaga penasihat. Peninggalan pengisian ruangan bahasa/loghat di dalam perintah tahanan semata-mata tidak membuktikan bahawa pemohon tidak diterangkan isi kandungan perintah tahanan. 2. Tindakan menjalankan inkuiri pada hari yang ke-15 selepas pegawai inkuiri menerima laporan lengkap siasatan daripada pegawai penyiasat adalah praktikal dan munasabah dan justeru tidak wujud kelewatan yang melampau yang bertentangan dengan ss. 5(2) dan (3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan) 1985. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Tahanan di bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Isi kandungan perintah tahanan dan hal-hal representasi telah diterangkan kepada pemohon dalam bahasa Melayu - Pemohon memperakukan penerimaan dan pemahaman isi kandungan perintah tahanan - Ruang bahasa/loghat di dalam perintah tahanan dikosongkan - Sama ada pemohon memerlukan khidmat jurubahasa Tamil - Sama ada peninggalan pengisian ruangan bahasa/loghat di dalam perintah tahanan merupakan satu kesengajaan PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Tahanan di bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Pegawai inkuiri mengambil 15 hari untuk memulakan inkuiri terhadap pemohon selepas menerima laporan lengkap siasatan daripada pegawai penyiasat - Sama ada terdapat penjelasan yang munasabah berkenaan kelewatan untuk memulakan inkuiri - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan yang melampau yang bertentangan dengan ss. 5(2) dan (3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985
|
|
|
PP lwn. MOHD FAHMI MD ZIN Penggunaan senjata pisau oleh tertuduh ketika melakukan kesalahan rompakan menunjukkan tertuduh tekad dalam melakukan samun tersebut. Justeru, satu hukuman berbentuk pengajaran dan pencegahan harus diberi supaya tertuduh tidak mengulangi kesalahannya dan juga menghalang orang lain daripada melakukan kesalahan yang sama. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman 30 bulan penjara dan 1 sebatan rotan bagi kesalahan rompakan bersenjata - Kesalahan serius - Tertuduh menggunakan senjata pisau untuk meminta mangsa menyerahkan wang - Hukuman dijatuhkan selepas bicara penuh - Kepentingan awam - Sama ada hukuman yang berbentuk pengajaran dan pencegahan harus diberi - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara adalah memadai
|
|
|
CHEN YUH FENG & ORS v. LOO BOO CHEAI The second marriage of the deceased with the first plaintiff solemnised customarily is deemed to be valid and registered under s. 4 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 when the marriage lasted for more than 30 years and in absence of any permanent separation and secrecy in the relationship. FAMILY LAW: Marriage - Validity of - Second marriage - Customary marriage - Long continued cohabitation - Birth certificates of children reflect status of deceased husband and plaintiff as parents - Marriage lasted more than 30 years - Absence of any permanent separation until demise of deceased - Name of children appeared in obituary of deceased husband - Repute of marriage - Whether deceased was prepared to expose existence of his second family - Whether there was secrecy in relationship - Whether there was intention to form a permanent union - Whether marriage was valid and deemed to be registered - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 4
|
|
|
CDL HOTELS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v. KESATUAN KEBANGSAAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA HOTEL BAR DAN RESTORAN SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA & ANOR 1. In awarding salary adjustments, the Industrial Court should give due consideration to the fact that the employer had given salary adjustments before and during the effective period of the collective agreement and in accordance with the legal principles as set out in the case of Tri-Wall (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Paper and Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union & Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia [R2-25-115-2011]. 2. Articles concerning recognition and scope of collective agreements in the hotel industry should be standardized to maintain consistency in the industry. In considering the clause concerning recognition and scope of collective agreements in the hotel industry, the Industrial Court should take into consideration similar clauses in collective agreements in other hotels. 3. Standardizing the period of probation in collective agreements lead to transparency and certainty, and this would not curtail the discretion of hotels on promotion matters. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash award of Industrial Court - Rulings made in favour of union for some of articles in collective agreement - Hotel industry - Articles on wage structure and wage progression - Industrial Court awarded an effective adjustment of salary across board of 6% based on consumer price index - Whether Industrial Court should have given due consideration to fact that employer had given salary adjustments before - Whether principles as set out in the case of Tri-Wall (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Paper and Paper Products Manufacturing Employees' Union & Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia [R2-25-115-2011] had been complied with LABOUR LAW: Trade dispute - Collective agreement - Hotel industry - General articles - Articles concerning recognition and scope of collective agreement - Whether article concerning recognition and scope of collective agreement was a standard clause of collective agreements in the hotel industry - Whether similar clause in collective agreements in other hotels should be taken into account - Whether standard clause was to maintain consistency in hotel industry LABOUR LAW: Trade dispute - Collective agreement - Hotel industry - General articles - Articles concerning promotion - Standardizing period of probation - Whether inclusion of a proposal on promotion is prohibited under s. 13(3) of Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether standardizing period of probation could lead to transparency and certainty - Whether standardizing period of probation could curtail discretion of hotel on promotion matters
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 10 (Part 2)
An insurer's right to avoid liability for a third party claim on the basis of breach of an insurance contract pursuant to s. 96(3) of the Road Transport Act ('Act') is not absolute as s. 96 is to be read together with s. 94 of the Act which acts to preserve the rights of an innocent third party notwithstanding any breach of contract.
Abuseman Jamaluddin v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2020] 10 CLJ 151 [CA]
INSURANCE: Liability - Repudiation - Road accident - Claim by third party against insurer - Insured found wholly liable for accident - Insurer denied liability on ground that insurance policy was void and unenforceable for breach of insurance contract by insured - Whether insurer exempted from liability - Whether insurer could repudiate liability to third party on premise of breach of insurance contract by insured - Road Transport Act 1987, ss. 94 & 96(1), (3)
BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
- For the appellant - Sarbjit Singh Khaira & Catherine David; M/s Khaira & Co Advocs
- For the respondent - Allan Lao, Shally Heng & David John Au; M/s David Allan Sagah & Teng Advocs
A lessor, having acquiesced to the use of land by the lessee contrary to the initial agreement for a substantial period of time and by its conduct, caused the lessee to expend huge amounts of money in improving and developing the land, could not subsequently treat the agreement as a tenancy at will, terminate the agreement and claim for vacant possession of the land on that very same ground. The court of equity will treat such an agreement as an equitable lease and may grant specific performance.
KPG Poh Plantations Sdn Bhd v. Perbadanan Pembangunan Pertanian Negeri Perak [2020] 10 CLJ 165 [CA]
LAND LAW: Lease - Termination - Validity of notice termination - Grounds for termination - Allegation of breach of covenants in agreement - Usage of land against prohibition in agreement - Whether lessor aware of usage - Whether lessor raised objection - Whether breach condoned and approved - Failure to issue notice of demand - Whether notice of termination bad in law
CONTRACT: Agreement - Termination - Specific performance - Termination of lease - Expiration of first three years period provided in earlier agreement - Absence of supplementary agreement - Whether subsequent agreement continued on same terms after expiration of earlier agreement - Whether treated as equitable lease - Whether lessee entitled to specific performance
HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
LAU BEE LAN JCA
- For the appellant - Cyrus Das & A Iruthaya Raj; M/s Raj Selva & Co
- For the respondent - Zaizuraimy Abd Rahim, Fey Aqis Mohd Khairuddin & Norazali Nordin; M/s Raimy Fuaad Aqis
A decision of the Disciplinary Board ('DB') affirming the Disciplinary Committee's finding on liability but disagreeing with the punishment recommended against the applicant is not reviewable. Neither is any notice issued by the DB requesting a solicitor's attendance to make representations before the DB under s. 103D(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA'); they are only steps in the process which will ultimately lead to a decision which is reviewable after the Disciplinary Board imposes punishment under s. 94 of the LPA. The representations to the DB under s. 103D(4) of the LPA provides an appropriate remedy which a solicitor should exhaust before commencing judicial review proceedings.
Ong Keh Keong v. Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-peguam [2020] 10 CLJ 181 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Disciplinary Board ('DB') affirmed findings of liability against advocate and solicitor by Disciplinary Committee ('DC') - Issuance of notice to advocate and solicitor pursuant to s. 103D(2) and (4) of Legal Profession Act 1976 - Whether DB made 'decision' - Whether application for judicial review of DB's finding premature - Whether abuse of court process - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53
LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary Board ('DB') - Complaint against advocate and solicitor - Affirmation of findings of liability by Disciplinary Committee ('DC') - Issuance of notice to advocate and solicitor pursuant to s. 103D(2) and (4) of Legal Profession Act 1976 - Whether DB made 'decision' - Whether DC's decision binding on DB - Whether application for judicial review of DB's finding premature - Whether amounted to attempt to short circuit disciplinary process
HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
- For the appellant - Ong Keh Keong; M/s Ong Partnership
- For the respondent - Hoi Jack S'ng & Andrea Chew Mei Yng; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
Placing of documents by mistake by the client's counsel in Part A of the bundle of documents instead of Part B ought not to be attributed to the client; thus, where an application to rectify the bundle of documents was made promptly, there was no evidence of mala fides and no miscarriage of justice occasioned to the parties which could not be compensated by costs, such an application may be allowed by the court.
L&S Cosmetics And Toiletries (M) Sdn Bhd v. Prudential Clinic Care Sdn Bhd [2020] 10 CLJ 206 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Documents - Bundle - Agreed bundle - Amendment to issues to be tried - Application to move documents from Part A to Part B - Factors to be considered - Whether genuine mistake - Whether delay in application - Whether amendment provides unfair opportunity to renew claim - Whether facts and issues within knowledge of parties - Whether application would result in gross miscarriage of justice
KHADIJAH IDRIS J
- For the plaintiff - Etrus Tan Chen Hee, Esther Ong Hui Chuen & Nurul Aida Mat Rifin; M/s Esther Ong, Tengku Saiful & Sree
- For the defendant - Chew Chang Min, Mary-Ann Ooi Suan Kim & Daryl Kong Kai Xuan; M/s OS Kim & Assocs
Where the subject matter of the application is not validly seized, there can be no valid forfeiture application under s. 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. It follows that an application to forfeit monies in a bank account which were never actually seized due to a seizure order which was wrongly addressed cannot succeed when the requirements under s. 56 have not been satisfied.
PP v. Barisan Nasional Bahagian Johor Bahru & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 222 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ('AMLATFPUAA') - Section 56(1) - Forfeiture - Application for - Whether complied with requirements of s. 56(1) of AMLATFPUAA - Whether application satisfied necessary conditions for property to be forfeited - Whether property seized subject matter or evidence relating to commission of money laundering offence - Whether there was any purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration in respect of seized property - Whether application made within period fixed by s. 56(1) of AMLATFPUAA
CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Section 4(1) - Proceeds of unlawful activity - Application for forfeiture of monies in bank account - Whether monies proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether property seized subject matter or evidence relating to commission of money laundering offence
AHMAD SHAHRIR MOHD SALLEH JC
- For the applicant - Samihah Rhazali, Abdul Rashid Sulaiman; DPP
- For the respondent - Syed Faisal Al-Edros Syed Abdullah, Syahrul Syazwan Salehin & Mohd Haziq Dhiyauddin Razali; M/s Syahrul & Co
A person having care of a child, be it a mother, father or a third party, has a duty to protect a child who is helpless and vulnerable from peril, and this includes protection from abandonment. Such duty, when breached, amounts to an offence under s. 317 of the Penal Code and the younger the child, the greater the gravity of the offence. The seriousness and rampancy of abandonment of children calls for an adequate and proportionate sentence to not only teach such offenders a lesson but to also reflect the public's abhorrence of such act and to deter them from committing the same inhumane act.
PP v. Norhayati Hashim & Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 246 [HC]
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 317 - Offence of leaving child with intention of wholly abandoning child - Grandmother and mother of child pleaded guilty to charge - Whether ingredients of charge fulfilled - Whether grandmother person 'having care of such child' stipulated in s. 317 - Whether grandmother had duty to care for child - Child Act 2001, s. 31(1)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Principles of - Adequacy of sentence - Accused persons pleaded guilty to leaving child with intention of wholly abandoning child - Accused persons each sentenced to one month imprisonment and fine of RM3,500, in default seven months' imprisonment - Whether sentence adequate and proportionate - Whether reflected seriousness of offence - Penal Code, ss. 34 & 317 - Whether ss. 173A and 294 of Criminal Procedure Code applied
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the appellant - Aishah Al Humayrah Kamaruzaman; DPP
- For the respondent - Arafas Abdul Razak; M/s Arafas & Jannah
In the case of an anonymous publication, the tort of defamation is actionable based on circumstantial evidence but in order to establish the identity of the tortfeasor, the test or 'irresistible conclusion' applies except where expressly provided statutorily to the contrary. In such a situation, the complainant must prove that the circumstances point inevitably towards the culpability of the tortfeasor and none other.
Stanislaus J Vincent Cross v. Ganesan Vyramutoo & Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 263 [HC]
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Circumstantial evidence - Anonymous publication of words defamatory of complainant - Whether identity of tortfeasors established - Whether 'irresistible conclusion' test satisfied - Whether circumstances cogently and firmly established - Whether circumstances pointed towards commission of tort by alleged tortfeasors - Whether circumstances, taken cumulatively, formed complete chain that there was inescapable conclusion that tort was committed by alleged tortfeasors and none else
TEE GEOK HOCK JC
- For the appellant - Francis Pereira & Pramod Nambiar; M/s Francis Pereira & Shan
- For the respondents - Sandosh Ananda & Chen Joey; M/s Sandosh Anandan
LNS Article(s)
PENJANA SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN: INCENTIVES FOR PROPERTY SECTOR* [Read excerpt]
by Tang Yen Yik [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxvONLINE ADR - AN AVENUE FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES IN CYBERSPACE [Read excerpt]
by Calvin Chew* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxviAN APPRAISAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECISION OF MULTI-DOOR COURT HOUSE IN NIGERIA [Read excerpt]
by Paul Ali Bobai* Ogundele Samson Abayomi** [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxvii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVD-19)) Act 2020 | 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 | - |
| ACT 829 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 | Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) | - |
| ACT 828 | National Land Code (Revised 2020) | 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 | - |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] | - |
| ACT 826 | Food Donors Protection Act 2020 | 31 March 2020 [PU(B) 166/2020] | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1625 | National Security Council (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 November 2020 | ACT 776 |
| ACT A1624 | Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 360 |
| ACT A1623 | Subordinate Courts Rules (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 532/2020] | ACT 55 |
| ACT A1622 | Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 531/2020] | ACT 92 |
| ACT A1621 | Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 530/2020] | ACT 91 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 293/2020 | Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 | 5 October 2020 | 6 October 2020 | PU(A) 210/2018 |
| PU(A) 292/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 8) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 2 October 2020 | 3 October 2020 | PU(A) 254/2020 |
| PU(A) 291/2020 | Factories and Machinery (Exemption To Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd., Kertih, Terengganu) Order 2020 | 1 October 2020 | 2 October 2020 | ACT 139 |
| PU(A) 287/2020 | Currency (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2020 | 30 September 2020 | 1 October 2020 | ACT 827 |
| PU(A) 285/2020 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) 2019 Order (Amendment) 2020 | 29 September 2020 | 8 March 2019 until 7 March 2024 | PU(A) 69/2019 |
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 69/2019 | Perintah Kastam (Duti Anti-Lambakan) 2019 | PU(A) 285/2020 | 8 Mac 2019 hingga 7 Mac 2024 | Jadual |
| PU(A) 241/2001 | Peraturan-Peraturan Perkhidmatan Bomba (Perakuan Bomba) 2001 | PU(A) 290/2020 | 1 Oktober 2020 | Peraturan 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 6, 6A - 6E, 7 dan Jadual Pertama - Jadual Keenam |
| PU(A) 254/2020 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 8) 2020 | PU(A) 321/2020 | 9 November 2020 | Peraturan 4B |
| AKTA 438 | Akta Zon Bebas 1990 | PU(B) 526/2020 | 20 Oktober 2020 | Jadual Pertama |
| ACT 701 | Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 | ACT A1616 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 479/2020] | Sections 62 - 64, 66A and 76 |
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 |