|
Issue #33/2021
19 August 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
|
SUMBANGAN ANEKA SDN BHD v. KNK DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS [2021] 7 CLJ 694
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-64-08-2019 (Q)]
26 APRIL 2021
A plaintiff whose pleaded case is based on a breach of contract may seek a declaration that the contract has been terminated. The existence of a statutory remedy is no bar to an action for declaration, as all a declaration does is to declare the rights of parties. This said, a party need not resort to a separate action to rectify an error in a document central to his case, as the court, upon the clear wording of s. 30 of the Specific Relief Act 1950, is seized with jurisdiction to rectify such an error. The fact that the error is labelled 'a mutual mistake' and not 'a clear mistake' does not disentitle the court to apply the principle in Nittan (UK) Ltd v. Solent Steel Fabrication Ltd; a mutual mistake, in terms of its amenability to rectification, stands on an even or higher footing than a clear mistake.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Declaratory order - Plaintiff claimed for declaration that development agreement had expired/terminated - Plaintiff's pleaded case based on breach of contract - Whether plaintiff barred from seeking declaration of court - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 41
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Documents - Rectification - Error in agreement - Whether mutual mistake - Whether party ought to take up separate action or separate suit for rectification - Whether court seized with jurisdiction to rectify instrument - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 30
OPEN COUNTRY DAIRY LTD v. ABLE FOOD SDN BHD [2021] 7 CLJ 716
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA; DARRYL GOON SIEW CHYE JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(IM)(NCC)-1793-11-2020]
24 MAY 2021
A party who executes a contract which also includes a reference to terms contained in another document is equally bound by those latter terms. It follows that the respondent herein, after having executed the Sales Contract which made reference to a document called 'the Terms of Trade' with the appellant, was bound by both the terms of the Sales Contract and that of the Terms of Trade; the fact that they had not read the Terms of Trade or that it had not been furnished to them is not an excuse to disavow the same.
CONTRACT: Terms - Reference - Malaysian company and company incorporated in New Zealand entered into contract for purchase of instant whole milk powder - Products discovered to be defective and of unmerchantable quality - Terms of trade incorporated by reference in sales contract via weblink - Terms of trade provided forum for any dispute in New Zealand and parties submitted to exclusive jurisdiction of courts in New Zealand - Whether parties to contract bound by reference to other incorporated documents - Whether there was consensus between parties on terms of trade
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Forum - Contract law - Contract entered into between Malaysian company and company incorporated in New Zealand - Parties entered into contract for purchase of instant whole milk powder - Products discovered to be defective and of unmerchantable quality - Allegation of breach of sales contract - Whether proper forum for dispute in New Zealand or Malaysia
MURALY SUBRAMANIAM v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 794
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
SU TIANG JOO JC
[NOTICE OF MOTION NO: AA-44-3-02-2021]
18 MAY 2021
An accused charged with an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment of more than five years under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) cannot be granted bail as it is expressly prohibited by s. 41B thereof. The prohibition under s. 41B (a) and (b) is absolute and applies equally to all accused irrespective of whether they are male, female, sick or infirm. It follows that the serious medical conditions of an applicant cannot be a ground to grant bail. It follows further that bail cannot be justified upon a consideration of s. 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Adding that section into s. 41B of the DDA falls within the realm of Parliament and not the court.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Bail - Application for - Accused charged with trafficking offence under s. 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether bail could be granted to accused person charged with offence punishable by death - Accused suffering from serious medical conditions - Factors considered - Whether s. 41B(1)(a) of DDA ought to be read subject to s. 388(1) of Criminal Procedure Code - Federal Constitution, arts. 5 & 8
“The main issue for determination in the judicial review is the legality, validity and appropriateness of the appointment of GSR as Senior DPP by the AG. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply in this case as the applications involved different considerations and different reliefs. In the criminal motion, the court did not deal with the justiciability of the AG's decision to appoint GSR as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor. The issue of justiciability of GSR's appointment will be considered by the court in the substantive hearing of the judicial review.”
“The nature and jurisdiction of the judicial review applications and the disqualification motions before the criminal court are clearly separate and distinct. The former is a public law remedy to challenge the legality of AG's appointment of GSR. The latter is a private law remedy to seek GSR to be disqualified on grounds of conflict, bias and unfitness. The issue of multiplicity and duplicity does not arise as the remedies sought are different.”
- per Hasnah Mohammed Hashim JCA in Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak v. Peguam Negara & Ors and Another Appeal [2020] 2 CLJ 73
Legal Network Series
|
MUSLINAH HASSAN lwn. HANARUDDIN BAHARUDDIN @ ROHANUDDIN & YANG LAIN Suatu penghakiman atau perintah yang telah dimeterai adalah muktamad dan pihak-pihak tidak boleh mengubah atau memadamkan kandungan perintah tersebut terutama apabila pihak-pihak tidak memfailkan rayuan berkenaan kandungan perintah tersebut. GANTI RUGI: Taksiran - Asas taksiran yang sesuai - Beban pembuktian - Tuntutan untuk pulangan pelaburan jual beli emas - Perintah hanya menyatakan perkataan 'pulangan' - Sama ada defendan perlu membayar pulangan pelaburan berserta modal - Sama ada munasabah untuk plaintif hanya mendapat kembali keuntungan daripada pelaburan tanpa modal - Sama ada formula pengiraan plaintif adalah betul - Sama ada plaintif telah kemukakan keterangan dokumentar bagi menyokong transaksi-transaksi yang berlaku - Sama ada defendan telah menyangkal bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan oleh plaintif - Sama ada suatu tuntutan ganti rugi boleh dibuktikan tanpa keterangan dokumen - Sama ada plaintif berhak untuk mendapatkan satu awad nominal jika tidak dapat mengemukakan keterangan sokongan berkaitan tuntutannya PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman dan perintah - Pengubahan - Pertikaikan berkenaan kemasukkan 'penal endorsement' di dalam perintah - Perintah telah dimeterai - Ketiadaan rayuan berkenaan kandungan perintah - Sama ada kandungan perintah telah muktamad - Sama ada suatu perintah yang muktamad boleh diubah - Sama ada 'penal endorsement' pada perintah boleh dipadamkan
|
|
|
NG LENG CHAI lwn. BP SENGKUANG PLANTATION SDN BHD Inferen yang kuat boleh dibuat dengan menyandar kepada keterangan keadaan untuk membuktikan pencerobohan dan kacau ganggu ke atas tanah walaupun tidak ada keterangan secara langsung perlakuan pencerobohan dan kacau ganggu dapat dibuktikan. TORT: Pencerobohan atas tanah - Ganti rugi - Tanah-tanah defendan terletak bersebelahan dengan tanah plaintif - Ketiadaan keterangan langsung berkaitan pencerobohan - Kewujudan kesan traktor yang masuk daripada lot tanah defendan - Defendan bertindak memusnahkan tanaman plaintif - Sama ada defendan telah melakukan pencerobohan dan kacau ganggu terhadap tanah plaintif - Sama ada inferen yang kuat dapat dibuat berdasarkan keterangan keadaan bahawa defendan yang telah melakukan pencerobohan - Sama ada plaintif berhak untuk menuntut ganti rugi bagi kehilangan tanaman yang sebenar PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding - Pembelaan - Isu-isu - Defendan membangkitkan isu locus standi plaintif tanpa memasukkan isu di dalam pembelaan - Sama ada kegagalan defendan untuk memplidkan isu locus standi plaintif di dalam penyataan pembelaannya adalah cacat dan fatal terhadap kes defendan - Sama ada pihak-pihak adalah terikat dengan pliding
|
|
|
KHOO GUAN HONG lwn. RON MILLER ANTONY Saman polis yang telah dikeluarkan atas nama pemandu motokar semata-mata tidak menunjukkan kecuaian atau kebersalahan pemandu motokar di dalam kemalangan tetapi ia adalah bukti untuk mahkamah mengambilkira sewaktu mempertimbangkan kebarangkalian kecuaian pemandu motokar tersebut di dalam kemalangan. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan tanggungan - Kebarangkalian kecuaian - Perlanggaran antara motokar dan motosikal ketika motokar mengubah laluan - Kemalangan berlaku akibat pedal motorsikal tersangkut pada tayar motokar - Saman polis telah dikeluarkan ke atas pemandu kereta - Sama ada pemandu motorkar wajar bertanggungan cuai 100% dalam kemalangan - Sama ada pengeluaran saman polis terhadap pemandu motokar menunjukkan kecuaian pemandu dalam kemalangan - Sama ada pengeluaran saman polis adalah bukti untuk mahkamah mengambilkira sewaktu mempertimbangkan kebarangkalian kecuaian GANTI RUGI: Ganti rugi khas - Kehilangan pendapatan - Tuntutan kehilangan separa pendapatan - Plaintif tidak dapat bekerja semula di luar negara akibat ketidakupayaan fizikal selepas kemalangan - Plaintif telah berjaya mendapat pekerjaan lain - Sama ada plaintif telah cuba untuk mengurangkan kerugian dengan mencari pekerjaan baru - Sama ada plaintif berhak mendapat ganti rugi kehilangan separa pendapatan
|
|
|
PP v. MONG SOON TAT Coercion is an integral part of the definition of trafficking in persons for purposes of sexual exploitation as envisaged under s. 12 of Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 ('ATIPSOM'). Coercion cannot be attached when the foreign nationals called as witnesses provided sexual services to the customers of their own free will. The mere act of the accused maintaining or acquiring the foreign nationals for sexual services without inflicting any form of coercion would not implicate the accused in an offence under s. 12 of ATIPSOM. CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 ('ATIPSOM') - Section 12 - Element of coercion - Accused acquired and maintained foreign nationals for sexual services - Passports were in possession of foreign nationals at all time - Foreign nationals were free to leave premises unaccompanied - Foreign nationals came to Malaysia voluntarily - Whether Foreign nationals were being held against their will and threatened with physical harm - Whether essential element of coercion had been proven - Whether coercion could be attached by mere act of maintaining and acquiring foreign nationals for sexual services
|
|
|
TETUAN PUTRA GILL v. SHENCOURT PROPERTIES SDN BHD Where there is a Court order requiring liquidators to make any decision jointly, then a unilateral decision of one of the joint liquidators to reject a proof of debt amounts to non-cognizance of the said Court order and the decision of the liquidator ought to be struck out. COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Liquidator - Joint liquidators - Decision making - Rejection of proof of debt by one liquidator - Other liquidator has no objection to proof of debt - Existence of a Court order requiring any decision of liquidators to be made jointly - Whether liquidator had failed to take cognizance of Court order requiring decision to be made jointly - Whether unilateral decision of liquidator ought to be struck out
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 7 (Part 5)
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in determining a cross-appeal under r. 8 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ('RCA') is restricted to the substance or point in issue in the primary appeal brought under r. 5 of the RCA. All cross-appeals that seek to challenge and set aside a part of the decision of the High Court which is unconnected to the substance of the appellants' primary appeal is therefore incompetent. Thus, the Court of Appeal, in setting aside a whole order or decision of the High Court, including the part which was decided in the appellants' favour and which was not appealed against, had not acted within its jurisdiction.
Douglas Ding Jangan & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak & Ors [2021] 7 CLJ 653 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Cross-appeal - Striking out cross-appeal - Scope or extent of matters that could rightfully be pursued under cross-appeal - Appellant's appeal limited to a specified part of judgment - Whether respondent could bring a cross-appeal in relation to other parts of judgment not appealed against - Whether cross-appeal must be limited to issue raised on appeal - Whether Court of Appeal acted within jurisdiction when setting aside whole of order or decision of High Court - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rr. 5, 8 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 67(1)
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
- For the appellants - Ronald SL Ong & Paul Raja; M/s Sagau Raja & Co Advocs
- For the 1st to 3rd respondents - Hrrison Aris & Mohamad Fuad Ahmad; Attorney General's Office State of Sarawak
- For the 4th respondent - Tan Thiam Teck; M/s George Lo & Partners
- For the 5th respondent - Gabriel Kok & Amanda Yong of; M/s Khoo & Co
- For the 6th to 8th respondents - Paul Tang Nguong Wee & Rodney Voon See Yang of; M/s Tan, Yap and Tang
Prosecutors have a duty to present their case fairly, impartially and professionally and to assist the court in arriving at the truth by producing all the relevant facts. The duty includes making available to the defence important witnesses who have been investigated and from whom statements had been recorded by the police.
Rosli Yusof v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 681 [FC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Prosecution - Duty - Accused person charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs - 112,892g cannabis found in car - Accused person's arrest led to arrest of others - Arrestees investigated and statements recorded by police - Prosecution did not offer arrestees as witnesses to defence - Whether prosecution has duty to make available, to defence, arrestees as witnesses - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)
EVIDENCE: Defence - Witness - Accused charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs - 112,892g cannabis found in car - Accused person's arrest led to arrest of others - Arrestees investigated and statements recorded by police - Prosecution did not offer arrestees as witnesses to defence - Whether prosecution has duty to make available, to defence, arrestees as witnesses - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, s. 39B(1)(a)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
- For the appellant - Simon Murali & Kok Yuen Lin; M/s Simon Murali & Co
- For the respondent - Abdul Ghaffar Ab Latif & Nurul Farhana Khalid; DPPs
A plaintiff whose pleaded case is based on a breach of contract may seek a declaration that the contract has been terminated. The existence of a statutory remedy is no bar to an action for declaration, as all a declaration does is to declare the rights of parties. This said, a party need not resort to a separate action to rectify an error in a document central to his case, as the court, upon the clear wording of s. 30 of the Specific Relief Act 1950, is seized with jurisdiction to rectify such an error. The fact that the error is labelled 'a mutual mistake' and not 'a clear mistake' does not disentitle the court to apply the principle in Nittan (UK) Ltd v. Solent Steel Fabrication Ltd; a mutual mistake, in terms of its amenability to rectification, stands on an even or higher footing than a clear mistake.
Sumbangan Aneka Sdn Bhd v. KNK Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 7 CLJ 694 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Declaratory order - Plaintiff claimed for declaration that development agreement had expired/terminated - Plaintiff's pleaded case based on breach of contract - Whether plaintiff barred from seeking declaration of court - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 41
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Documents - Rectification - Error in agreement - Whether mutual mistake - Whether party ought to take up separate action or separate suit for rectification - Whether court seized with jurisdiction to rectify instrument - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 30
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
- For the appellant - Frank KH Tang, Leong Hsin Ru & John Sim; M/s Tang & Partners
- For the respondents - Clement Wong Teck Hoo & Then Siaw Lian; M/s Clement & Co Advocs
A party who executes a contract which also includes a reference to terms contained in another document is equally bound by those latter terms. It follows that the respondent herein, after having executed the Sales Contract which made reference to a document called 'the Terms of Trade' with the appellant, was bound by both the terms of the Sales Contract and that of the Terms of Trade; the fact that they had not read the Terms of Trade or that it had not been furnished to them is not an excuse to disavow the same.
Open Country Dairy Ltd v. Able Food Sdn Bhd [2021] 7 CLJ 716 [CA]
CONTRACT: Terms - Reference - Malaysian company and company incorporated in New Zealand entered into contract for purchase of instant whole milk powder - Products discovered to be defective and of unmerchantable quality - Terms of trade incorporated by reference in sales contract via weblink - Terms of trade provided forum for any dispute in New Zealand and parties submitted to exclusive jurisdiction of courts in New Zealand - Whether parties to contract bound by reference to other incorporated documents - Whether there was consensus between parties on terms of trade
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Forum - Contract law - Contract entered into between Malaysian company and company incorporated in New Zealand - Parties entered into contract for purchase of instant whole milk powder - Products discovered to be defective and of unmerchantable quality - Allegation of breach of sales contract - Whether proper forum for dispute in New Zealand or Malaysia
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
DARRYL GOON SIEW CHYE JCA
- For the appellant - Alvin Julian Amalanathan & Long Mohd Noor Adman; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co
- For the respondent - Richard Kok Chi Wei & Tan Ko Xin; M/s Rhiza & Richard
It is not necessary for an indemnified person, in enforcing a Letter of Indemnity and Guarantee, to first prove a breach by the principal. A Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity may take the form of a guarantee or an indemnity; and where it is an indemnity, and the liability of the indemnifier is a primary liability, then the indemnified person, as a matter of law, is entitled to enforce the indemnity separately and independently from the underlying liabilities and obligations of the principal under the said Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity.
GJ Consultancy Sdn Bhd v. Gan Teck Lim [2021] 7 CLJ 738 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Writ and statement of claim - Claim for amount due and owing based on fixture note arising from letter of guarantee and indemnity - Whether guarantee or indemnity - Whether claim subject to proof of breach in arbitration tribunal - Whether claim made prior to proof of breach amounted to abuse of court process - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 77, 79 & 86 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b), (c) & (d)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Application for stay in favour of arbitration agreement - Claim for amount due and owing based on fixture note arising from letter of guarantee and indemnity - Whether guarantee or indemnity - Whether presence of arbitration clause in fixture note required matter be referred to arbitration tribunal - Whether claim subject to proof of breach by arbitration tribunal - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 10(1) & (4)
ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD JC
- For the plaintiff - Poon Choong Yiew & Teh Kiao Huoi; M/s James Liew & Kong
- For the defendant - Harjinder Singh Sandhu; M/s Akberdin & Co
An award handed down by an arbitrator ought to be entirely set aside when the arbitrator failed to make a full or timeous disclosure of his relationship with an interested party in the arbitration in breach of s. 14(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005. Such lapses may lead to a perception in the mind of a fair minded and informed observer that the arbitrator could have committed certain breaches, thereby casting justifiable doubt on his impartiality and independence.
Low Koh Hwa v. Persatuan Kanak-kanak Spastik Selangor Dan Wilayah Persekutuan & Another Case [2021] 7 CLJ 755 [HC]
ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Application for - Whether award dealt with dispute not contemplated by or not falling within terms of submissions - Whether award contained decisions on matters beyond scope of terms - Whether award in conflict with public policy - Arbitrator's disclosure of relationship with interested party in arbitration proceedings - Whether complied with full disclosure and timeous disclosure requirement - Requirements for arbitrator to be impartial as provided in first rule of natural justice and independence - Whether there were serious breaches - Whether entire award ought to be set aside - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 14, 15, 37, 38 & 39
ARBITRATION: Award - Enforcement - Application for - Whether award dealt with dispute not contemplated by or not falling within terms of submissions - Whether award contained decisions on matters beyond scope of terms - Whether award in conflict with public policy - Arbitrator's disclosure of relationship with interested party in arbitration proceedings - Whether complied with full disclosure and timeous disclosure requirement - Requirements for arbitrator to be impartial as provided in first rule of natural justice and independence - Whether there were serious breaches - Whether entire award ought to be set aside - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 14, 15, 37, 38 & 39
WONG KIAN KHEONG J
- For the plaintiff - Steven Wong Chin Fung & James Ng Kean Yip; M/s Arifin & Partners
- For the defendant - Ankit R Sanghvi, Thoo Yee Huan & Alycia Chuah Yuin Ting; M/s Halim Hong & Quek
An accused charged with an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment of more than five years under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) cannot be granted bail as it is expressly prohibited by s. 41B thereof. The prohibition under s. 41B (a) and (b) is absolute and applies equally to all accused irrespective of whether they are male, female, sick or infirm. It follows that the serious medical conditions of an applicant cannot be a ground to grant bail. It follows further that bail cannot be justified upon a consideration of s. 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Adding that section into s. 41B of the DDA falls within the realm of Parliament and not the court.
Muraly Su bramaniam v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 794 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Bail - Application for - Accused charged with trafficking offence under s. 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether bail could be granted to accused person charged with offence punishable by death - Accused suffering from serious medical conditions - Factors considered - Whether s. 41B(1)(a) of DDA ought to be read subject to s. 388(1) of Criminal Procedure Code - Federal Constitution, arts. 5 & 8
SU TIANG JOO JC
- For the applicant - Charan Singh Kartar Singh; M/s Nurul & Charan
- For the respondent - Maziyah Mansor; DPP
In order for the court to grant an order of committal for the failure to make payment under the terms of a consent judgment, an applicant must meet the strict requirements under O. 45 r. 1(1)(c) of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'). An order for payment of money may be enforced by way of an order of committal only in a case which O. 45 r. 5 applies, namely when a person required by a judgment or order to do an act within a time specified in the judgment or order refuses or neglects to do it.
OSSG Management Sdn Bhd v. Platinum Eden Asset Management Sdn Bhd & Anor; Platinum Eden Asset Management Sdn Bhd & Ors (Respondents) [2021] 7 CLJ 809 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings - Application for - Share purchase agreement - Applicant unable to proceed with agreement - Consent judgment for full and final settlement - Failure to pay settlement sum despite extension of time - Whether met strict requirement for grant of committal order - Whether shown willful neglect to meet obligation - Whether there was alternatives for recovery of settlement sum - Whether failure to indorse penal notice fatal to application - Rules of Court 2012, O. 45 rr. 1(1)(c) & 7(4)
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
- For the applicant/plaintiff - JH Chai & Wilson Lim; M/s Lim, Chan & Assocs
- For 3rd respondent - Mohd Faiz Iskandar Hamzah; M/s Arief & Iskandar
LNS Article(s)
KEY CHANGES - DRAFT AIAC ARBITRATION RULES 2021+ [Read excerpt]
by Ashok Kumar Mahadev Ranai* Loshini Ramarmuty [2021] 1 LNS(A) civCASE COMMENTARY: ZULPADLI & EDHAM v. INAI OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERING SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2011] 6 CLJ 47 – THE POSITION OF A SOLICITOR'S LIEN OVER NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
by Noor Asyikeen Mohd Salleh* Mohd Munzeer Zainul Abidin** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cviETHICS AND STANDARDS IN PRACTICE CASE STUDY: ON WHOSE AUTHORITY CAN A LAW PRACTICE DISBURSE TRUST MONEY? [Read excerpt]
by Rob Reis* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cv
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) 341/2021 | Proclamation - Summon The Parliament | 18 August 2021 | 19 August 2021 | ACT 000 |
| PU(A) 340/2021 | Proclamation - Prorogue The Parliament | 18 August 2021 | 19 August 2021 | ACT 000 |
| PU(A) 339/2021 | Companies (Amendment) Regulations 2021 | 18 August 2021 | 19 August 2021 | PU(A) 37/2017 |
| PU(A) 338/2021 | Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 9) Order 2021 | 17 August 2021 | 19 August 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(A) 337/2021 | Ministers of The Federal Government Order 2021 | 16 August 2021 | 16 August 2021 | ACT 2 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 422/2021 | Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 | 18 August 2021 | 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 421/2021 | Notice To Third Parties | 18 August 2021 | 19 August 2021 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 420/2021 | Notice To Third Parties | 17 August 2021 | 18 August 2021 | ACT 613 |
| PU(B) 419/2021 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Chief Executive Officer of The Board | 17 August 2021 | Appointment - 3 September 2019; Revocation - 18 August 2021 | ACT 427 |
| PU(B) 418/2021 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Chief Executive Officer of The Board | 17 August 2021 | Appointment - 14 May 2017; Revocation - 18 August 2021 | ACT 427 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 37/2017 | Companies Regulations 2017 | PU(A) 339/2021 | 19 August 2021 | Schedule |
| PU(A) 445/2017 | Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2017 | PU(A) 335/2021 | 13 August 2021 | Schedule |
| ACT 366 | Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989) | PU(A) 332/2021 | 10 August 2021 | First Schedule |
| AKTA 469 | Akta Optik 1991 | PU(A) 331/2021 | 7 Ogos 2021 | Jadual Kedua |
| ACT 469 | Optical Act 1991 | PU(A) 331/2021 | 7 August 2021 | Second Schedule |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 201/2020 | Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan (No. 3) 2020 | PU(A) 337/2021 | 16 Ogos 2021 |
| PU(A) 201/2020 | Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 3) Order 2020 | PU(A) 337/2021 | 16 August 2021 |
| PU(A) 278/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 4) 2021 [Dibatalkan Oleh PU(A) 293/2021] | PU(A) 293/2021 | 5 Julai 2021 |
| PU(A) 278/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 [Revoked By PU(A) 293/2021] | PU(A) 293/2021 | 5 July 2021 |
| PU(B) 454/2020 | Pelantikan Anggota Lembaga | PU(B) 341/2021 | 19 Jun 2021 |