|
Issue #49/2020
26 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
|
INNAB SALIL & ORS v. VERVE SUITES MONT' KIARA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION [2020] 10 CLJ 285
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-74-10-2019(W)]
05 OCTOBER 2020
(1) The effect of a harmonious construction between s. 120 of the National Land Code and s. 70 of the Strata Management Act 2013 is that the grant of powers or rights by one particular provision in a law does not mean that such rights may not, at the same time, be restricted by other provisions of the law. Hence, the issuance of conditions and restrictions of use in a title of land by the State Authority does not preclude the management corporation of a residential strata building from promulgating further rules, regulations or by-laws for the purposes provided for by law.
(2) When there is no proof of exclusive possession on the part of short-term renters and there is no evidence to suggest that occupancy of the renters is intended to be a tenancy, the said arrangements are nothing more than mere licenses and does not amount in law to 'dealings' within the ambit of s. 70(5) of the Strata Management Act 2013.
LAND LAW: Strata title - Management corporation - Enactment of house rules prohibiting use of residential units for business including short term rental - Validity of house rules - Whether house rules may override and supersede express land use imposed by State Authority under s. 120 of National Land Code - Whether management corporation precluded from promulgating further rules, regulations or by-laws - Whether there was proof of exclusive possession on short term renters - Whether arrangements amounted to 'dealings' within s. 70(5) of Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') - Whether enforcement of house rule in violation of s. 70(5) of SMA
BEBE SAKIMAH MOHD ASROF v. PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI PERAK [2020] 10 CLJ 413
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
SU TIANG JOO JC
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: AA-24NCVC-478-11-2019]
21 OCTOBER 2020
Not all Malay Reservation land is necessarily a Malay holding; it could also be a non-Malay holding. It is insufficient for the document of title of a piece of land to only be endorsed with 'Pengisytiharan Rezab Melayu' without the particulars of the land specified. Sections 6(i) and 2(a) of the Malay Reservation Enactment (FMS Cap. 142) ('MRE') provide three steps that must be complied with for a land to be declared, post the commencement of the MRE, a Malay holding. Under the proviso in s. 2(a), no interest shall be deemed to be a Malay holding until a requisition in the prescribed Form A in the First Schedule has been registered against the register document of title for such land.
LAND LAW: Malay Reservations - Malay holding - Registration of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Whether purchaser Malay - Whether non-Malay could be registered as proprietor of Malay Reservation Land - Whether prohibitions and restrictions against dealings apply to all Malay Reservation Lands - Whether applied to property in question - Whether property Malay holding - Whether Land Office complied with necessary statutory steps to declare property to be Malay holding - Whether mere endorsement of Malay Reservation Land without particulars sufficient for property to be declared Malay holding - Whether purchaser could be registered as proprietor of property - Malay Reservations Enactment (FMS Cap. 142)
LAND LAW: Malay Reservations - Registration - Registration of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Purchaser paid registration fees and penalty for presentations - Whether purchaser entitled to refund of fees and penalty - National Land Code, ss. 293(1) & 293(3)(a)
EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Legal and evidential burden - Land law - Registration by non-Malay of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Whether property Malay holding - Whether Land Office bore evidential burden to prove statutory steps have been taken to ensure property was Malay Reservation Land and Malay holding - Whether Land Office complied with necessary statutory steps to declare property to be Malay holding - Whether there was evidence to support - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 101, 102, 103 & 106
“The distinction between a tenancy and a licence is fundamental as a licence is merely a step above trespass in that it confers a right to the occupier to enter or remain on someone else's land or premises for consideration, without committing trespass. A tenancy or a lease on the other hand grants more than mere contractual rights because it confers certain other protections to the tenant under statute. For instance, under s. 221 of the NLC, a lease is a registrable interest and once registered, confers a right in rem to the lessee.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in Innab Salil & Ors v. Verve Suites Mont' Kiara Management Corporation [2020] 10 CLJ 285
Legal Network Series
|
PETER REGIS SELVARAJOO lwn. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & YANG LAIN 1. Perlantikan pengerusi lembaga pencegahan jenayah ('LPJ') adalah diterima sebagai fakta apabila pemohon tidak memfailkan sebarang afidavit berkaitan perlantikan dan kelayakan pengerusi LPJ tersebut. Justeru, perlantikan pengerusi LPJ yang telah mematuhi peruntukan s. 7B Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 adalah tidak wajar diragui. 2. Pegawai siasatan tidak perlu melampirkan bukti perlantikannya di dalam afidavitnya. Pengataan yang dibuat di dalam afidavit pegawai siasatan berkenaan perlantikannya adalah memadai bagi maksud s. 8 Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Pertikaian berkenaan perlantikan pengerusi lembaga pencegahan jenayah ('LPJ') - Pemohon tidak memfailkan sebarang afidavit berkaitan lantikan dan kelayakan pengerusi LPJ difailkan - Tempoh jawatan pengerusi LPJ tidak dinyatakan di dalam afidavit pengerusi - Sama ada lantikan dan kelayakan pengerusi LPJ terjumlah kepada penerimaan fakta oleh pemohon - Sama ada perlantikan pengerusi LPJ telah mematuhi peruntukan s. 7B Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 - Sama ada perlantikan pengerusi LPJ wajar diragui - Sama ada ketiadaan tempoh lantikan pengerusi LPJ dalam afidavitnya menjejaskan perintah tahanan PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Pertikaian berkenaan perlantikan pegawai siasatan - Surat perlantikan pegawai siasatan tidak dilampirkan di dalam afidavit pegawai siasatan - Sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk pegawai siasatan membuktikan perlantikannya - Sama ada afidavit pegawai siasatan telah membuktikan perlantikannya - Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959, s. 8
|
|
|
ZULEZRI IBRAHIM lwn. PP Kepentingan awam menghendaki pesalah-pesalah yang melakukan kesalahan rogol statutori dikenakan hukuman yang berat sebagai pengajaran kepada pesalah-pesalah dan sebagai peringatan kepada bakal pesalah yang lain. Hukuman yang berat terhadap pesalah-pesalah adalah perlu untuk melindungi mangsa kanak-kanak perempuan di bawah umur yang telah diambil kesempatan oleh pesalah-pesalah untuk melakukan persetubuhan. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Hukuman penjara 13 tahun dan 5 kali sebatan bagi kesalahan rogol statutori - Kepentingan awam - Keseriusan kesalahan - Sama ada hukuman berbentuk pencegahan berpatutan dan munasabah bagi kesalahan yang berat - Sama ada hukuman yang berat akan melindungi kanak-kanak perempuan di bawah umur - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara adalah berpatutan
|
|
|
INDRA SUPPAN & YANG LAIN lwn. NORHAFIDAH A SAMAD Adalah menjadi tidak adil kepada pihak insuran untuk membayar keseluruhan tuntutan pihak ketiga atas dasar 100% sedangkan kecuaian yang diputuskan adalah hanya setakat 70%. Justeru, pihak insuran berhak untuk menuntut tanggung rugi 30% yang telah dibayar dari pelaku tort. INSURANS: Tuntutan - Sumbangan atau tanggung rugi - Pihak insuran telah membayar tuntutan pihak ketiga atas dasar 100% sedangkan kecuaian yang diputuskan adalah 70% - Sama ada pihak insuran berhak menuntut sumbangan atau tanggung rugi 30% daripada defendan selaku pelaku tort - Sama ada tuntutan pihak insuran wajar dibenarkan bagi mengelakkan ketidakadilan kepada pihak insuran
|
|
|
PP v. LIM CHIN OOI & ANOTHER CASE It is essential for the claimant to adduce credible evidence to satisfy all the three conditions under s. 32(2) of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 ('Act 1988') in order to seek for release of seized property. Mere reliance on a statutory declaration of an individual who had allegedly given the said property to the claimant as a gift, which had been marked as ID document, could not be admitted as evidence to support the claimant's application for release of the seized property. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against order of release of seized property - Wristwatches worth almost 1 million - Claimant alleged wristwatches were given as a gift - Claimant merely tendered statutory declaration of individual who allegedly gave wristwatches as gift - Trial judge relied on statutory declaration that was marked as ID document - Whether all three conditions under s. 32(2) of Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 ('Act 1988') had been met - Whether it was essential for claimant to adduce credible evidence to discharge burden to prove conditions under s. 32(2) of Act 1988 - Whether claimant was lawfully entitled to seized property - Whether forfeiture of seized property becomes mandatory Criminal Appeal No: WA - 42(Ors) - 13 - 06/2018
Criminal Appeal No: WA - 42(Ors) - 14 - 06/2018
|
|
|
MUHAMMAD NUR HAFIZ ROSLAN v. JAKEL TRADING SDN BHD The court has discretion to allow the plaintiff to discontinue the original action with liberty to file afresh when there is no deprivation of any advantage nor prejudice caused to the defendant and when the defendant is allowed to proceed with its counterclaim. Since the merits in the original action had not been decided, grave injustice would be caused to the plaintiff if denied liberty to file a fresh action. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Discontinuance - Discontinuation of original action - Liberty to file afresh - Plaintiff applied for leave to discontinue original action on first day of trial with liberty to file afresh - Discretion of court - Defendant proceeded with counterclaim - Whether discontinuance of original action had caused deprivation of any advantage and prejudice to defendant - Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable if plaintiff was allowed to discontinue action with liberty to file afresh - Whether grave injustice would be caused to plaintiff if no liberty to file afresh was ordered upon withdrawal of action - Rules of Court 2012, O. 21 r. 3(1)
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 10 (Part 3)
(1) The effect of a harmonious construction between s. 120 of the National Land Code and s. 70 of the Strata Management Act 2013 is that the grant of powers or rights by one particular provision in a law does not mean that such rights may not, at the same time, be restricted by other provisions of the law. Hence, the issuance of conditions and restrictions of use in a title of land by the State Authority does not preclude the management corporation of a residential strata building from promulgating further rules, regulations or by-laws for the purposes provided for by law.
(2) When there is no proof of exclusive possession on the part of short-term renters and there is no evidence to suggest that occupancy of the renters is intended to be a tenancy, the said arrangements are nothing more than mere licenses and does not amount in law to 'dealings' within the ambit of s. 70(5) of the Strata Management Act 2013.
Innab Salil & Ors v. Verve Suites Mont’ Kiara Management Corporation [2020] 10 CLJ 285 [FC]
LAND LAW: Strata title - Management corporation - Enactment of house rules prohibiting use of residential units for business including short term rental - Validity of house rules - Whether house rules may override and supersede express land use imposed by State Authority under s. 120 of National Land Code - Whether management corporation precluded from promulgating further rules, regulations or by-laws - Whether there was proof of exclusive possession on short term renters - Whether arrangements amounted to 'dealings' within s. 70(5) of Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') - Whether enforcement of house rule in violation of s. 70(5) of SMA
:
:
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
- For the appellants - Manpal Singh, Tan Weng Hung, Vinu Kamalanathan & Conrad Lopez; M/s Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Partners
- For the respondent - Shahabudin Shaik Alaudin, Rosnida Che Ibrahim & Siti Nurazwani Zulkeflee; M/s Shahabudin & Rozima
A purchaser of a piece of land cannot, upon the discovery of certain structures on his land after purchasing the said land, claim that there is trespass to his land when he chose to sleep on his responsibility to take necessary steps to inspect the land and make inquiries before making the said purchase.
Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v. Jabatan Pengairan Dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 321 [CA]
TORT: Trespass - Trespass to land - Land purchased through public auction - Purchaser discovered existence of retention pond and structures on land after purchasing land - Whether existence of retention pond and structures justified - Whether purchaser took necessary steps to inspect land before making purchase - Whether doctrine of caveat emptor applied - Whether there was trespass
:
:
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
- For the appellant - Leong Wai Hong, Richard Kok Chi Wei & Tan Ko Xin; M/s Rhiza & Richard
- For the respondents - Siti Fatimah Talib; SLA & Etty Eliany Tesno; SFC
In view of the failure by the promisee to accept the repudiation of the contract by the promisor, the claim for loss of profits by the promisee for architectural work, which had never proceeded beyond the infant stage, some 18 years earlier, is bound to fail. In any event, the right to enforce the claim for loss of profits after the repudiation in 1997, was barred by limitation pursuant to the Sabah Limitation Ordinance.
Chung Vui Kong v. K.K.I.P. Sdn Bhd [2020] 10 CLJ 337 [CA]
CONTRACT: Termination - Damages - Architectural fees and loss of profits - Agreement repudiated 18 years earlier - Absence of acceptance of repudiation - Whether agreement subsisted - Whether claim confined to works actually carried out - Whether any beneficial work carried out to justify payment - Whether non-existence of project negated claim for loss of profits - Architects (Scale of Minimum Fees) Rules 1986, r. 5 - Architects Rules 1996, r. 28
CONTRACT: Repudiation - Damages - Claim for loss of profits - Repudiatory event occurred 18 years earlier - Whether right of termination could be exercised after having elected to keep agreement alive - Whether causation between breach and loss of profits established - Whether loss of profits natural and probable result of breach of contract - Whether claim recoverable - Contracts Act 1950, s. 74(2)
LIMITATION: Accrual of cause of action - Right of action - Claim for loss of profits - Failure to commence action within six years of breach of contract - Whether right to enforce claim barred by limitation
:
MARY LIM JCA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
- For the appellant - David Fung; M/s Alex Pang & Co
- For the respondent - Govinda Raj; M/s Raj & Co
As a general rule, an estoppel cannot operate in respect of a statute which is intended to protect a class of persons, namely; borrowers who borrow money from licensed moneylenders. Regardless of the circumstances which gives rise to a waiver/estoppel, a moneylender cannot rely on such waiver/estoppel to preclude the borrower from asserting his rights as provided for under the Moneylenders Act 1951 ('the Act'). Non-compliance of the Act is also not capable of being rectified or remedied even if a fresh suit is filed.
Powernet Industries Sdn Bhd v. Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd [2020] 10 CLJ 374 [CA]
MONEYLENDERS: Moneylending transaction - Monies due and owing - Claim for - Whether moneylending agreement in breach of s. 16 of Moneylenders Act 1951 - Whether waiver could override breach of s. 16 - Whether estoppel could operate in respect of statute intended to protect class of persons - Whether moneylender could rely on waiver/estoppel to preclude borrower from asserting his rights - Whether borrower entitled to rely upon moneylender's contravention of Act in opposing claim for recovery of monies
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Liberty to file a fresh suit - Appeal against - Moneylending transaction - Moneylending agreement in breach of s. 16 of Moneylenders Act 1951 - Whether capable of being rectified or remedied even if fresh suit filed - Whether new suit would overcome breach - Whether fresh suit doomed to fail by reason of contravention of s. 16 - Whether court wrong in granting liberty to party to file its claim afresh
:
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
- For the appellant - Lua Ai Siew & Sim Shyr Jinn; M/s Soo Thien Ming & Nashrah
- For the respondent - Alfred Lai Choong Wui & Brian Ernst Cummings; M/s Alfred Lai & Partners
Where the prosecution's case rests on CCTV footage to weave their narrative, it is vital that the crucial moments which the prosecution wishes to highlight as per the charge against an accused, be reflected in the CCTV footage adduced to support the prosecution's version. The omission of the relevant part of the CCTV footage which results in prejudice to an accused, is detrimental to the prosecution's case and will possibly amount to suppression of material evidence.
Teo Kian Chun v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 10 CLJ 398 [CA]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused persons found guilty and convicted for trafficking in dangerous drugs and having poison in possession - Drugs and poison found in bag at airport - Accused persons sentenced to imprisonment and death - Defence that bag did not belong to accused persons - Whether defence probable - Whether failure to adduce full CCTV footage of incident detrimental to prosecution's case - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Whether ought to be set aside - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a) - Poisons Act 1952, s. 30(3) - Penal Code, s. 34
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused persons found guilty and convicted for trafficking in dangerous drugs - Trial judge invoked double presumptions under s. 37(d) and 37(da) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether gave rise to real risk that accused persons may be convicted of drug trafficking in circumstances where reasonable doubts remained - Whether there was serious misdirection by trial judge - Whether conviction and sentence safe - Whether ought to be set aside - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)
:
:
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
(Criminal Cases No: J-05(M)-281-05-2018 & J-05(SH)-286-05-2018)
- For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Yasmeen Soh & Raveena Kaur Vessy; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
- For the respondent - Mangaiarkarasi Krishnan; DPP
(Criminal Cases No: J-05(M)-282-05-2018 & J-05(SH)-287-05-2018)
- For the appellant - K L Chee; M/s K L Chee & Co
- For the respondent - Mangaiarkarasi Krishnan; DPP
Not all Malay Reservation land is necessarily a Malay holding; it could also be a non-Malay holding. It is insufficient for the document of title of a piece of land to only be endorsed with 'Pengisytiharan Rezab Melayu' without the particulars of the land specified. Sections 6(i) and 2(a) of the Malay Reservation Enactment (FMS Cap. 142) ('MRE') provide three steps that must be complied with for a land to be declared, post the commencement of the MRE, a Malay holding. Under the proviso in s. 2(a), no interest shall be deemed to be a Malay holding until a requisition in the prescribed Form A in the First Schedule has been registered against the register document of title for such land.
Bebe Sakimah Mohd Asrof v. Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak [2020] 10 CLJ 413 [HC]
LAND LAW: Malay Reservations - Malay holding - Registration of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Whether purchaser Malay - Whether non-Malay could be registered as proprietor of Malay Reservation Land - Whether prohibitions and restrictions against dealings apply to all Malay Reservation Lands - Whether applied to property in question - Whether property Malay holding - Whether Land Office complied with necessary statutory steps to declare property to be Malay holding - Whether mere endorsement of Malay Reservation Land without particulars sufficient for property to be declared Malay holding - Whether purchaser could be registered as proprietor of property - Malay Reservations Enactment (FMS Cap. 142)
LAND LAW: Malay Reservations - Registration - Registration of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Purchaser paid registration fees and penalty for presentations - Whether purchaser entitled to refund of fees and penalty - National Land Code, ss. 293(1) & 293(3)(a)
EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Legal and evidential burden - Land law - Registration by non-Malay of property expressly stated as Malay Reservation Land - Presentations for registration by purchaser rejected by Land Office - Whether property Malay holding - Whether Land Office bore evidential burden to prove statutory steps have been taken to ensure property was Malay Reservation Land and Malay holding - Whether Land Office complied with necessary statutory steps to declare property to be Malay holding - Whether there was evidence to support - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 101, 102, 103 & 106
:
SU TIANG JOO JC
- For the plaintiff - Norazura Mohamed Mokhtar; M/s Azura Mokhtar & Low
- For the defendant - Suhaila Haron; Assistant Legal Advisor, State Legal Advisor, Perak
LNS Article(s)
COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 2020 — PROPOSED CHANGES TO BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF SHARES IN PRIVATE COMPANIES* [Read excerpt]
by Lee Yuan Yao [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxviiiMARITIME COLLISION CLAIMS AND THE PRELIMINARY ACT IN MALAYSIA — AN ESSAY IN PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE* [Read excerpt]
by Matthew Jerome Van Huizen** [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxxDATA PRIVACY FOR LAWYERS: AN INTRODUCTION [Read excerpt]
by Chris KH Kwan* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxxiDOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES [Read excerpt]
by John Wilson[i] Kieran Pender[ii] Rebecca Richardson[iii] [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxix
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-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) 294/2020 | Self-Employment Social Security (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2020 | 6 October 2020 | 7 October 2020 | ACT 789 |
| 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) 290/2020 | Fire Services (Fire Certificate) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 30 September 2020 | 1 October 2020 | PU(A) 241/2001 |
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| ACT 789 | Self-Employment Social Security Act 2017 | PU(A) 294/2020 | 7 October 2020 | First Schedule |
| PU(A) 210/2018 | Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) Order 2018 | PU(A) 293/2020 | 6 October 2020 | Schedule A |
| PU(A) 254/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 8) Regulations 2020 | PU(A) 292/2020 | 3 October 2020 | New regulation 4A |
| PU(A) 241/2001 | Fire Services (Fire Certificate) Regulations 2001 | PU(A) 290/2020 | 1 October 2020 | Regulations 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 6, 6A - 6E and 7 and Schedules |
| PU(A) 276/1998 | Fire Services (Designated Premises) Order 1998 | PU(A) 289/2020 | 1 October 2020 | Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 254/2010 | Customs Duties (Goods Under the Free Trade Agreement Between Malaysia and New Zealand) Order 2010 | PU(A) 286/2020 | 1 October 2020 |
| PU(B) 255/2000 | Designation and Revocation of Designation of Area Under Regulation 285 | PU(B) 486/2020 | 1 October 2020 |
| PU(B) 266/2008 | Minister's Direction Under Regulation 285 | PU(B) 485/2020 | 1 October 2020 |
| 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 |