|
Issue #21/2021
27 May 2021
|
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
|
DAMANSARA REALTY (PAHANG) SDN BHD v.
OM CAHAYA MINERAL ASIA BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL [2021] 5 CLJ 283
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA; SUPANG LIAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: W-02(NCvC)(W)-2289-11-2018 & W-02(IM)(NCvC)-685-04-2019]
03 DECEMBER 2020
The defendant landowner, in entering into a mining agreement with the plaintiff and allowing the latter to mine bauxite off its land in Pahang pursuant to the provisions of the Mining Enactment 2001 ('Enactment'), could not plead illegality and terminate the agreement on the ground of the plaintiff's failure to obtain the requisite mining licence from the State Authority, as, by virtue of s. 81(1) of the Enactment, the duty to obtain such proprietary mining licence is on the defendant qua landowner; it is also clear that in opting for termination simpliciter, which on the facts amounts to a termination forthwith and immediate and goes against the grain of the agreement, the defendant was guilty of proffering a bad notice in law so as to render the termination unlawful. This notwithstanding, the plaintiff is not entitled to any reimbursement for the special damages for 'wasted expenditure' it claimed, as it did not adduce any fresh documentary evidence during the assessment trial and relied instead on the earlier trial documents which were in Part C and not marked as exhibits. Part C bundle of documents are disputed as to their authenticity, existence and contents, and hence the original documents ought to have been produced and marked, firstly and initially as 'IDs' and later as exhibits after the maker(s) thereof had been called in and examined. This however, was not done and there was no evidence to prove the items of wasted expenditure claimed by the plaintiff.
CONTRACT: Termination - Agreement - Right to terminate agreement by giving 60 days' notice - Letter of termination demanded plaintiff to 'cease operations and demobilise immediately' - Plaintiff kept out of land immediately upon termination - Non-compliance with notice period - Whether termination simpliciter or termination with cause - Whether time given to remedy breach - Whether defendant relinquished right to raise any reason to justify termination - Whether termination lawful
-
Kelana Megah Development Sdn Bhd lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kota Tinggi & Satu Lagi Dan Rayuan Yang Lain [2018] 1 LNS 1655 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi Kelana Megah Development Sdn Bhd lwn. Pejabat Tanah Daerah Kota Tinggi & Anor [2017] 1 LNS 1803
-
Ikumi Terada v. Jemix Co Ltd & Ors And Another Appeal [2019] 1 LNS 881 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Jemix Co. Ltd & Anor v. Jemix Heat Treatment (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [Civil Suit No: WA-22IP-7-03/2016]
Legal Network Series
|
AZAHAR ABDUL AZIZ lwn. PP Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia ('Suruhanjaya') mempunyai kuasa di bawah s. 43 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 ('Akta SPRM') untuk memintas, mendengar dan merekodkan perbualan telefon antara tertuduh dan pengadu. Satu sijil perakuan di bawah s. 43(4) Akta SPRM harus dikemukakan bersama-sama rakaman dan transkripsi perbualan telefon antara tertuduh dan pengadu untuk membolehkan rakaman dan transaksi tersebut dijadikan sebahagian keterangan kes pendakwaan. Apabila sijil perakuan tidak diperolehi, maka pegawai yang memberi kuasa untuk pintasan perbualan telefon tersebut harus dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan bagi membolehkan rakaman dan transkripsi perbualan telefon tersebut diterima masuk sebagai keterangan. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Permintaan dan pemerolehan wang suapan secara rasuah - Wang suapan dipersetujui diterima oleh pegawai polis bagi membantu mengurangkan hukuman keatas pengadu yang terlibat dalam kesalahan penyalahgunaan dadah - Sama ada intipati pertuduhan di bawah s. 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 ('Akta SPRM') telah dibuktikan - Sama ada tertuduh telah mematahkan anggapan di bawah s. 50 Akta SPRM - Sama ada penemuan wang perangkap merupakan keterangan sokongan UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Seksyen 43 - Kuasa Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia ('Suruhanjaya') untuk memintas, mendengar dan merekodkan perbualan melalui telekomunikasi - Pintasan perbualan telefon antara tertuduh dan pengadu - Perakuan di bawah s. 43(4) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 ('Akta SPRM') tidak diperolehi oleh Suruhanjaya - Sama ada rakaman dan transkripsi perbualan telekomunikasi antara tertuduh dan pengadu boleh dijadikan sebahagian keterangan kes pendakwaan tanpa sijil perakuan di bawah s. 43(4) Akta SPRM - Sama ada pegawai yang memberi kuasa untuk pintasan perbualan telefon telah dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan bagi membolehkan rakaman dan transkripsi diterima masuk sebagai keterangan
|
|
|
MULTI-PURPOSE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI A tax payer has the right to apply for judicial review, in exceptional circumstances, against the decision of the Inland Revenue on matters relating to tax assessment instead of the statutory appeal procedure to the Special Commissioner of Income Tax. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for leave - Application to quash notices of additional assessment issued by Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') - DGIR was of the view that tax payer's earnings from securities investment did not fall within offshore non-trading activity on its own behalf - Tax payer did not exhaust appeal procedure to Special Commissioner of Income Tax ('SCIT') - Whether tax payer has right of choice to apply for judicial review instead of statutory appeal procedure to SCIT - Whether there was an arguable case for relief via judicial review - Whether issues relating to special circumstances and correctness of facts as found by DGIR could be determined during hearing of leave application
|
|
|
BINA PURI CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v. CAPRIFORM BUILDERS SDN BHD A summary judgment order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction ought to be given legal recognition, force and binding effect. As such, a debt adjudged to be paid summarily cannot be treated as a disputed debt or be reasonably capable of being a bona fide disputed debt. A judgment creditor is entitled to execute the summary judgment order, although pending appeal, by any mode of execution. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Fortuna injunction - Winding up proceedings premised on a summary judgment order - Summary judgment order pending appeal - Absence of stay of execution of summary judgment order - Whether debt adjudged to be paid ought to be treated as disputed debt - Whether there was an indisputable debt which was legally payable - Whether intended winding-up petition based upon such debt has chance of success - Whether Court is entitled to review merits of appeal - Whether judgment creditor is entitled to resort to any mode of execution in enforcing payment - Whether presentation of winding-up petition would have adverse consequences on financial and daily operations of judgment debtor - Whether there was any sustainable ground for a Fortuna injunction
|
|
|
TOUPOS PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD v. PEMBANGUNAN LAPANSERI SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASES The adjudication claim, adjudication response and adjudication reply are treated as submissions of the parties in an adjudication proceeding and as such, parties are required to fully present and advance their respective cases with their submissions and authorities in the adjudication claim, adjudication response and adjudication reply itself. An adjudicator has discretionary power to allow further submissions as may be required by the parties and in the event such a request is rejected by the adjudicator, then such rejection will not constitute a breach of natural justice which warrants setting aside of the adjudication decision. CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Dispute over payment claims - Allegation of breach of natural justice - Adjudicator rejected request for filing of further submissions and to produce further documents - Whether an adjudicator has discretionary power to order further submissions of parties - Whether parties are required to fully present and advance their submission and authorities in adjudication claim, adjudication response and adjudication reply - Whether every breach of natural justice would cause adjudication decision to be set aside - Whether mere rejection for filing of further submissions constitutes a breach of natural justice - Whether adjudication ought to be set aside CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Enforcement - Adjudication decision - Whether object of adjudication proceeding is to ensure a speedy and inexpensive interim resolution of payment dispute in construction contract pending final determination of dispute by arbitration and court - Whether effect must be given to object of adjudication rather than to defeat it
|
|
|
KELAH LAH v. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN, JOHOR & ORS The court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may allow joinder of parties in judicial review proceedings. Parties who have a direct interest that would be adversely affected by orders made in judicial review proceedings can be made a party at any time during the judicial review proceedings without leave of the Court. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Judicial review - Joinder of parties - Application to include municipal council and land administrator as respondents - Judicial review proceedings filed in respect of assessment of compensation for land acquisition - Inherent jurisdiction of court - Whether municipal council and land administrator have direct interest and would be adversely affected by orders made in judicial review proceeding - Whether Court in its inherent jurisdiction could allow application for joinder of parties in judicial review proceedings - Whether leave of court was required to add parties - Whether application for joinder can be made at any time during judicial review proceedings
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 5 (Part 3)
The defendant landowner, in entering into a mining agreement with the plaintiff and allowing the latter to mine bauxite off its land in Pahang pursuant to the provisions of the Mining Enactment 2001 ('Enactment'), could not plead illegality and terminate the agreement on the ground of the plaintiff's failure to obtain the requisite mining licence from the State Authority, as, by virtue of s. 81(1) of the Enactment, the duty to obtain such proprietary mining licence is on the defendant qua landowner; it is also clear that in opting for termination simpliciter, which on the facts amounts to a termination forthwith and immediate and goes against the grain of the agreement, the defendant was guilty of proffering a bad notice in law so as to render the termination unlawful. This notwithstanding, the plaintiff is not entitled to any reimbursement for the special damages for 'wasted expenditure' it claimed, as it did not adduce any fresh documentary evidence during the assessment trial and relied instead on the earlier trial documents which were in Part C and not marked as exhibits. Part C bundle of documents are disputed as to their authenticity, existence and contents, and hence the original documents ought to have been produced and marked, firstly and initially as 'IDs' and later as exhibits after the maker(s) thereof had been called in and examined. This however, was not done and there was no evidence to prove the items of wasted expenditure claimed by the plaintiff.
Damansara Realty (Pahang) Sdn Bhd v. Om Cahaya Mineral Asia Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 5 CLJ 283 [CA]
CONTRACT: Termination - Agreement - Right to terminate agreement by giving 60 days' notice - Letter of termination demanded plaintiff to 'cease operations and demobilise immediately' - Plaintiff kept out of land immediately upon termination - Non-compliance with notice period - Whether termination simpliciter or termination with cause - Whether time given to remedy breach - Whether defendant relinquished right to raise any reason to justify termination - Whether termination lawful
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
- For the appellant - Mathew Thomas Philip, Alliff Benjamin Suhaimi & Phoebe Lai Yean Wei; M/s Thomas Philip
- For the respondent - Masturina Mohamad Rodzi; M/s Edwin Lim & Suren
An advocate and solicitor, when acting as a Commissioner for Oaths and attesting a sale of property, must record the transactions as undertaken by him in the Commissioner for Oaths Register. Where a land owner alleged that his land has been fraudulently sold to a purchaser upon an attestation made by the solicitor Commissioner for Oath in his absence, or that he has never executed the relevant Power of Attorney or presented himself at the solicitor's office for such purpose, then the absence of any record of the landowner's presence at the office of the solicitor at the material time may constitute a cause for the court to rule that the landowner was actually not there to transact the sale, and that the same had been executed and attested in his absence, or without his knowledge or consent.
Subramaniam Muniandy v. Letchumi Thasan & Ors [2021] 5 CLJ 331 [CA]
LAND LAW: Transfer - Fraud - Registered owner allegedly signed power of attorney for transfer of land to another - Whether registered owner transferred land - Whether purchaser held indefeasible title - Whether document forged - Whether transfer of land valid - Whether transfer shrouded with collusion, cheating, irregularities and fraud
LAND LAW: Sale of land - Subsequent purchaser - Registered owner allegedly signed power of attorney for transfer of land to another - Purchaser sold land to subsequent purchaser using fraudulent means - Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser - Whether there was valuable consideration - Whether there was good faith in conveyance of land - Whether subsequent purchaser enjoyed indefeasibility of title to land
EVIDENCE: Witness - Independent witness - Registered owner allegedly signed power of attorney for transfer of land to another - Whether registered owner transferred land - Whether there was fraud - Whether there were independent witnesses to support registered owner's contention that document was forged
LAU BEE LAN JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
- For the appellant - Jayamurugan Vadivelu & Mohamad Saifullah; M/s Jayamurugan Vadivelu & Partners
- For the respondents - AG Kalidass & Jasmin Raj; M/s K Nadarajah & Partners & Ramdhari; M/s Rama Velu & Assocs
There being no provision under the amended s. 38 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990, particularly sub-s. (4), which allows an electricity supplier to disconnect the supply after an offending meter has been rectified and further loss of revenue has ceased, and the Federal Court's decision in Mayaria Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad, it is in order for the court to exercise its discretion to grant an injunction against the supplier to prevent it from disconnecting the electricity supply, pending the hearing of the main suit.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. My Seven Vacation Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2021] 5 CLJ 350 [CA]
UTILITIES: Electricity supply - Disconnection - Discovery of meter tampering at premises - Notice of disconnection of electricity supply issued - Interim injunction filed against electricity supplier from carrying out disconnection pending hearing of main suits - Whether customers satisfied requirement to obtain interim injunction - Whether electricity supplier enabled to disconnect supply after offending meter rectified or remedied - Whether there was correct application of s. 38 of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Mayaria Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interim injunction - Interim injunction filed against electricity supplier from carrying out disconnection pending hearing of main suits - Whether customers satisfied requirement to obtain interim injunction - Whether electricity supplier enabled to disconnect supply after offending meter rectified or remedied - Whether there was correct application of s. 38 of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Mayaria Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad
MARY LIM JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
- For the appellant - Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan & Jason Cheong Kak Lok; M/s Azmi & Assocs
- For the respondents - Shamsul Bahrin Manaf, Prithi Verma & Maizura Mohamed Amin; M/s Prithi Junainah & Assocs
- CM Lai, Loh Cien Zen & Maisarah; M/s CM Lai & Partners
A defaulting purchaser-borrower has no legal right to postpone or stay the lender-bank's foreclosure proceedings against his property on the ground that he has a pending suit against the developer-vendor in respect of the property whereof he was claiming for rescission of the relevant sale and purchase agreement on ground of false or fraudulent representations on the part of the developer. The courts should not exercise its discretionary power in a way or to an extent which renders banking business impracticable or burdensome or which impedes the flow of commerce.
Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd v. Sureendhran Subramaniam & Anor [2021] 5 CLJ 362 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Banking - Bank commenced foreclosure proceedings against borrower following default of repayment of loan facilities - Application for stay of proceedings by borrower of bank's action pending borrower's suit against developer - Whether borrower had shown 'something quite exceptional' and 'cause to the contrary' to warrant stay of proceedings - Whether borrower had legal right to postpone or stay bank's foreclosure proceedings
BANKING: Loan facility - Default - Borrower charged property to bank in execution of loan facilities - Bank commenced foreclosure proceedings against borrower following default of repayment of loan facilities - Application for stay of proceedings by borrower of bank's action pending borrower's suit against developer - Whether bank's rights of foreclosure could be defeated by borrower's dispute with developer - Whether bank's interest as registered chargee indefeasible
TEE GEOK HOCK JC
- For the applicant - Syarifah Dewi Siti Fatimah Syed Ahmad Fahmi Wafa; M/s KY Sim & Co
- For the respondent - Mugunthen Vadiveloo; M/s Mugu & Sufyan & Co
As the plaintiffs' main complaint to substantiate its application for an invalidation of the defendants' registered trade marks was that the latter had contravened third parties' trade marks, of which the plaintiffs had no legal, economical or business connection with, the plaintiffs failed to 'pass the test' and be recognised as aggrieved persons within the meaning of s. 47 of the Trademarks Act 2019. Having no substantive locus standi to initiate the action, the plaintiffs were deemed mere busybodies.
Qi Sheng Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Foong Yit Meng & Anor [2021] 5 CLJ 377 [HC]
TRADE MARKS: Registered trade mark - Invalidation - Application for - Whether plaintiffs persons aggrieved by registration of trade marks - Whether plaintiffs possessed locus standi - Whether plaintiffs fell within category of busybodies - Whether plaintiffs estopped from challenging validity of trademarks - Trademarks Act 2019, s. 47
MOHD RADZI HARUN J
- For the plaintiffs - Ng Poh Tat; M/s Loh Yew Dong & Co
- For the defendants - Kuek Pei Yee, Melissa Long Lai Peng & Lam Rui Rong; M/s Skrine
Section 5(3) to (6) of the Insolvency Act 1967 ('the Act') does not contain any express provision that the liquidation of the principal borrower company ('company') must be completed and the company dissolved before leave can be granted to the creditor to commence bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor as guarantor. As the creditor had exhausted all modes of execution, the requirement for leave under s. 5(4) of the Insolvency Act 1967 was satisfied.
Re Malaya Sibuku; Ex p: Kaya Karisma Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 CLJ 403 [HC]
BANKRUPTCY: Proceedings - Leave - Leave to commence bankruptcy action against debtor - Debtor, guarantor for debts incurred by principal debtor, borrower company - Whether liquidation of borrower company must be completed and dissolved before leave could be granted - Whether creditor exhausted all modes of execution against debtor - Insolvency Act 1967, s. 5(4), (6)
LEONARD DAVID SHIM JC
- For the judgment debtor - Kevin Wong; M/s Baldev Gan & Assocs
- For the judgment creditor - Azimi Yahya; M/s Chee & Co
The main object of O. 15 r. 6(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to contribute to the effective, complete and global disposal of the dispute in the cause or matter, or of the relief or remedy that is claimed in it. In determining whether a party may be added as an intervener, the test to be adopted is whether the proposed intervener's legal interests would be directly affected by any order or judgment which might be made in the action. Commercial interests alone would not be sufficient to allow intervention.
Securities Commission Malaysia v. Wong Shee Kai & Ors; Bright Packaging Industry Bhd (Proposed Intervener) [2021] 5 CLJ 411 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Intervener - Application for - Directors of company used corporate exercises as devices, schemes and/or acts which operated as fraud upon company - Securities Commission commenced action for recovery of monies against directors of company - Application by company to intervene and to be added as co-defendant - Whether company had legal interest - Whether company would be directly affected by judgment and/or order - Whether company had pecuniary interest - Whether application to intervene ought to be allowed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)
ANAND PONNUDURAI JC
- For the plaintiff - Lim Chee Wee, Kwan Will Sen & Joyce Lim Hwee Yin; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
- For the proposed intervener - David Thomas Mathews & Ng Ken Yong; M/s Mathews Hun Lachimanan
The Director-General of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board has no power to return or release palm oil seized once prosecution commences. Such action, ie the return or release of the seized oil, may stifle any impending prosecution.
Vandelay Ventures Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah, Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia & Anor [2021] 5 CLJ 424 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application for judicial review against decision of Director General ('DG') of Malaysian Palm Oil Board - Officials conducted raid and seized oil - Company sought return of seized oil and application rejected by DG - Whether matter under investigation - Whether DG could return seized oil - Whether court had power to order return/release of seized oil - Whether matter amenable to judicial review
TUN ABD MAJID HAMZAH J
- For the appellant - Nur Afiqah Mohd Ashriee & Aizul Rohan Anuar; M/s Saiful, Roger & Co
- For the respondent - Noor Hisham Ismail & Najib Zakaria; M/s Najib Hisham Isa
LNS Article(s)
ILLEGAL DENTAL PRACTITIONERS IN MALAYSIA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES [Read excerpt]
by Mazwin Mazlan* Irini Ibrahim** [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxviiOSHA BILL 2020 — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 1994 ("OSHA ACT") — WHAT SHOULD BE NOTED BY THE EMPLOYER* [Read excerpt]
by Nur Najehan Jalaldin [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxviiiCOVID-19 FROM THE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (PART 1)* [Read excerpt]
by Mohammad Hashim Kamali [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxix
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 831 | Finance Act 2020 | The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 | - |
| 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] | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1634 | Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 | 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 174/2021] | ACT 502 |
| ACT A1633 | Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 791 |
| ACT A1632 | Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] | ACT 807 |
| ACT A1631 | Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] | ACT 806 |
| ACT A1630 | Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] | ACT 438 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 234/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 | 24 May 2021 | 25 May 2021 | PU(A) 225/2021 |
| PU(A) 233/2021 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) (Extension) (No. 2) Order 2021 | 23 May 2021 | 24 May 2021 | ACT 504; ACT 235 |
| PU(A) 232/2021 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) (Extension) Order 2021 | 23 May 2021 | 24 May 2021 | ACT 504; ACT 235 |
| PU(A) 231/2021 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) Order 2019 (Amendment) 2021 | 23 May 2021 | 24 May 2021 | PU(A) 127/2019 |
| PU(A) 230/2021 | Ministers of The Federal Government (No. 3) (Amendment) Order 2021 | 19 May 2021 | 16 April 2021 | PU(A) 201/2020 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 301/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose Lot 481710 Mukim Kuala Lumpur | 25 May 2021 | 26 May 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 300/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose Lot 20029 City Kuala Lumpur | 25 May 2021 | 26 May 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 299/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose Lot 20020 City Kuala Lumpur | 25 May 2021 | 26 May 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 298/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose Lot 10018 Town Putrajaya | 25 May 2021 | 26 May 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 297/2021 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Registrar of Credit Reporting Agencies | 25 May 2021 | 16 March 2021 | ACT 710 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 225/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) 2021 | PU(A) 234/2021 | 25 Mei 2021 | Jadual Pertama dan Kedua |
| PU(A) 225/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 234/2021 | 25 May 2021 | First and Second Schedules |
| PU(A) 127/2019 | Perintah Kastam (Duti Anti-Lambakan) (Kajian Semula Pentadbiran) 2019 | PU(A) 231/2021 | 24 Mei 2021 | Jadual |
| PU(A) 127/2019 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Administrative Review) Order 2019 | PU(A) 231/2021 | 24 May 2021 | Schedule |
| PU(B) 333/2020 | Pelantikan Dan Pembatalan Pendaftar Orang Kurang Upaya | PU(B) 272/2021 | 12 April 2021 | Jadual |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 260/2013 | Income Tax (Deduction For Training Costs Under Skim Latihan 1Malaysia For Unemployed Graduates) Rules 2013 | PU(A) 228/2021 | 11 September 2019 |
| PU(A) 98/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan) (No. 3) 2021 | PU(A) 225/2021 | 10 Mei 2021 |
| PU(A) 98/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 225/2021 | 10 May 2021 |
| PU(A) 97/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 4) 2021 | PU(A) 225/2021 | 10 Mei 2021 |
| PU(A) 97/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 225/2021 | 10 May 2021 |