|
Issue #35/2021
02 September 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
|
TEO CHEE KONG v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 29
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: S-06A-18-06-2018]
14 JUNE 2021
The power of the High Court under s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is discretionary. The High Court is not duty bound to refer the constitutional questions posed by a party to the Federal Court in all cases. It is also unnecessary for the High Court to proffer any answer, 'negative' or 'affirmative' to the constitutional questions brought before it.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Criminal trial - Constitutional questions - Application to High Court to refer constitutional questions to Federal Court for determination - High Court Judge ('HCJ') answered questions in negative and did not refer questions to Federal Court - Criminal trial ordered to proceed - Whether HCJ erred in answering constitutional questions - Whether HCJ acted within powers in not referring questions to Federal Court and ordering trial to proceed - Whether discretion not to refer questions to Federal Court exercised correctly - Whether constitutional questions ought to be remitted to another HCJ for rehearing - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 30 & 84
-
PP v. Mohd Firdaus Asren Saputra BMS Asren [2019] 1 LNS 1913 (CA) overruling the High Court case of PP v. Mohd Firdaus Asren Saputra BMS Asren [Criminal Trial No. BKI-45SO-6/2-2017 & BKI-45SO-7/2-2017]
-
Chin Pey Lee & Anor v. Teori Warisan Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] 1 LNS 1914 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Teori Warisan Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Ors [Permohonan Untuk Semakan Kehakiman No. JA-25-54-07/2017]
Legal Network Series
|
SEGAR ATHIGESAN & YANG LAIN lwn. AMIRHAMZAH AZMAN & YANG LAIN Tuntutan untuk kehilangan keupayaan menjana pendapatan tidak wajar dibenarkan apabila plaintif tidak lagi bekerja pada tarikh kemalangan. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kemalangan - Liabiliti - Penentuan tanggungan - Keterangan senyap - Kemalangan di laluan bertentangan - Pegawai penyiasat gagal untuk mendapatkan laporan kimia mengenai kenderaan-kenderaan yang terlibat dalam kemalangan - Plaintif telah mengakui motokar hilang kawalan secara tiba-tiba dan memasuki laluan bertentangan - Sama ada motokar plaintif telah menyebabkan kemalangan - Sama ada kenderaan dari arah bertentangan dapat mengawal dan mengelak kemalangan - Sama ada kemalangan berlaku atas kecuaian plaintif sepenuhnya - Sama ada plaintif wajar bertanggungan 100% dalam kemalangan GANTI RUGI: Kecederaan diri - Kehilangan pendapatan - Kehilangan keupayaan menjana pendapatan - Plaintif telah ditamatkan kerja sebulan sebelum kemalangan dan tidak bekerja semasa kemalangan - Sama ada plaintif berhak untuk menuntut kehilangan keupayaan menjana pendapatan
|
|
|
MUGUNTHAN LURTHUNATHAN lwn. PP Seksyen 39C (1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB') telah memperuntukkan hukuman minima selama 5 tahun terhadap tertuduh yang disabitkan dengan kesalahan di bawah s. 15(1)(a) ADB yang mempunyai sekurang-kurangnya 2 sabitan lampau untuk kesalahan yang sama. Justeru, Mahkamah tidak mempunyai budi bicara untuk menjatuhkan hukuman yang kurang daripada tempoh minima yang telah diperuntukkan. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman 5 tahun penjara dan 1 sebatan rotan bagi kesalahan memasukkan dadah berbahaya ke dalam tubuh sendiri - Pengakuan bersalah - Kewujudan 2 sabitan lampau bagi kesalahan yang sama - Sama ada hakim bicara mempunyai budi bicara untuk menjatuhkan hukuman yang kurang daripada 5 tahun - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan terhadap tertuduh adalah paling minima - Sama ada dapatan hakim bicara wajar diganggu - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, s. 39C(1)
|
|
|
KIRETHI VASAN MURUGESWARAN lwn. PP 1. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil seorang saksi tidak membangkitkan anggapan bahawa pihak pendakwaan berniat untuk memendapkan atau menyembunyikan sebarang keterangan jika pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kesnya. 2. Pembelaan alibi tertuduh dapat dilumpuhkan sekiranya identiti tertuduh telah dicam secara positif oleh mangsa sebagai salah seorang yang telah melakukan serangan terhadap mangsa pada hari kejadian. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 326 - Niat - Sengaja menyebabkan cedera parah - Tertuduh menetak mangsa dengan parang - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai niat untuk menyebabkan cedera parah terhadap mangsa - Sama ada intipati kesalahan telah dibuktikan KETERANGAN: Pengecaman - Identiti tertuduh - Pengecaman tertuduh oleh saksi - Penyerang memakai topi keledar ketika kejadian - Mangsa diserang dengan parang sehingga menyebabkan cedera parah - Sama ada mangsa secara positif berupaya mengecam identiti tertuduh sebagai penyerang ketika kejadian - Sama ada pengecaman tertuduh dari kandang saksi adalah memuaskan KETERANGAN: Inferen bertentangan - Kegagalan memanggil saksi - Kes pendakwaan - Saksi telah menyaksikan keseluruhan kejadian - Keperluan untuk memanggil saksi selepas pihak pendakwaan membuktikan kesnya - Sama ada inferen bertentangan wajar dibangkit terhadap pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berniat untuk memendapkan dan menyembunyikan sebarang keterangan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Alibi - Tertuduh mendakwa tidak berada di tempat kejadian - Mangsa berupaya mengecam tertuduh secara positif sebagai orang yang menyerang mangsa di tempat kejadian - Sama ada jalur pembelaan alibi tertuduh telah dilumpuhkan dengan pengecaman positif mangsa - Sama ada pembelaan alibi telah dibuktikan
|
|
|
SHARMILA MANIAM v. SIVAMANI PILLAY VEERASANAN A disputed WhatsApp chat message between parties is only admissible as evidence once it is proven that the conversation was in fact between the parties by an official evidentiary confirmation from the relevant telecommunication company. The mere fact that a party had admitted to certain parts of the disputed WhatsApp chat message does not give liberty to the other party to apply for the disputed WhatsApp chat message to be accepted and marked as an exhibit. FAMILY LAW: Children - Custody - Application for custody, care and control of child below age of 7 years - Child was living with mother since birth - Father only visited child 3 times - Father failed to maintain child since birth - Whether petitioner wife is entitled to custody of a child during period of nurture - Whether presumption under s. 88(3) of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act) 1976 has been rebutted by respondent husband - Whether respondent husband is entitled to be given supervised access EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Admissibility - WhatsApp chat messages - Document marked as ID - Whether official evidentiary confirmation from relevant telecommunication company was required to prove conversation via WhatsApp messages - Whether mere admission of certain chat messages gives liberty to a party to apply for all chat messages to be accepted and marked as exhibit EVIDENCE: Admissibility - Recordings of conversation - Video conversation - Whether statutory requirements of s. 90A Evidence Act 1950 has been complied with - Whether video recording could be admitted and marked as an exhibit
|
|
|
SITHRADEVI A/P NAGALINGAM v. MASDAR BIN DARMAN & ANOR; MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA (INTERVENER) There is no serious breach of natural justice when the hearing of disciplinary proceedings proceeds in the absence of the person inquired if, prior to the commencement of the said disciplinary proceedings, the person inquired had informed the chairman of the disciplinary committee to proceed with the inquiry in her absence and based on the documents supplied by her. In such circumstances, the person inquired should be estopped from claiming that she had been denied the proper right and opportunity to be heard. LEGAL PROFESSION: Role of advocates and solicitors - Struck off - Application to set aside decision of disciplinary board - Hearing of disciplinary proceeding proceeded in absence of person inquired - Person inquired informed chairman of disciplinary committee to proceed with inquiry based on documents supplied - Whether person inquired had deliberately ignored notifications and reminders sent by disciplinary committee - Whether person inquired was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard - Whether there was a serious breach of natural justice - Whether disciplinary committee could proceed with inquiry without attendance of person inquired - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 109
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 8 (Part 1)
A purchaser of property, upon a termination of a sale and purchase agreement and in the absence of a total failure of consideration, cannot simultaneously claim for breach of contract and rescission. The remedies cannot subsist together, more so when the breach did not go to the root of the contract. The right to rescind only arises if there has been a total failure of consideration, the absence of which, therefore, deprives the purchaser of the right; the evidence of defects in property, as manifested by the facts here, will only entitle the purchaser to damages for breach of warranty.
Fabulous Range Sdn Bhd v. Helena K Gnanamuthu [2021] 8 CLJ 1 [CA]
CONTRACT: Rescission - Sale and purchase agreement - Whether there was total failure of consideration - Whether vacant possession of property already taken by purchaser - Whether purchaser already exercised rights under agreement - Whether innocent misrepresentation made out - Whether defects in property could give rise to rescission - Whether defects in property rectifiable - Whether omission to rectify defects amounted to breach of warranty - Whether only entitled to damages
CONTRACT: Termination - Sale and purchase agreement - Claim for rescission and breach of contract by purchaser - Whether there was innocent misrepresentation or total failure of consideration - Whether purchaser could claim both remedies - Whether rescission and breach of contract could subsist together - Whether inconsistent with one another - Whether rescission could be allowed after full conveyance of property - Grant of rescission and award of damages at same time - Whether correct
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
- For the appellant - Brian Foong Mun Loong & Lim Ke Xin; M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff
- For the respondent - Joy Appukuttan; M/s KH Lim & Co
A judgment found to be still valid, can be executed if limitation for execution had not set in; a judgment cannot be defeated unless it is time barred. Courts are empowered to grant fresh leave if no execution is taken after a lapse of a year after leave is given. In this case, although a bankruptcy proceeding is not an execution, the creditor's right to issue a bankruptcy proceeding is pegged to his right to proceed with an execution. The court in allowing leave to execute may also grant leave for proceeding with the bankruptcy proceeding after a lapse of six years. That power is exercisable upon a reading of O. 46 and O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.
Moez Ali Akbarally & Anor v. Public Bank Bhd [2021] 8 CLJ 20 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Execution - Leave to execute judgment after lapse of six years - Whether leave given for bankruptcy proceeding remains valid notwithstanding bankruptcy proceeding was set aside - Whether applicant entitled to execute judgment as limitation for execution had not set in - Whether applicant provided plausible reasons in support for leave to execute after lapse of six years - Whether laches applied in process of execution of judgment - Whether court in giving leave to execute may give leave for proceeding with bankruptcy proceeding after lapse of six years - Rules of Court 2012, O. 46 & O. 92 r. 4
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA
- For the appellants - Amarjeet Singh Mehar Singh & Avtar Singh Prem Singh; M/s Zubeda & Amarjeet
- For the respondent - Shantini Koshy; M/s Yong & Rakan-Rakan
The power of the High Court under s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is discretionary. The High Court is not duty bound to refer the constitutional questions posed by a party to the Federal Court in all cases. It is also unnecessary for the High Court to proffer any answer, 'negative' or 'affirmative' to the constitutional questions brought before it.
Teo Chee Kong v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 29 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Criminal trial - Constitutional questions - Application to High Court to refer constitutional questions to Federal Court for determination - High Court Judge ('HCJ') answered questions in negative and did not refer questions to Federal Court - Criminal trial ordered to proceed - Whether HCJ erred in answering constitutional questions - Whether HCJ acted within powers in not referring questions to Federal Court and ordering trial to proceed - Whether discretion not to refer questions to Federal Court exercised correctly - Whether constitutional questions ought to be remitted to another HCJ for rehearing - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 30 & 84
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
- For the appellant - Roland Cheng, Ram Singh, Kimberly Ye Wan Chuin & Michele Yee; M/s Roland Cheng & Co
- For the respondent - Allan Suman Pillai & Mohd Sophian Zakaria; DPPs
Lembaga Penasihat boleh membenarkan kehadiran mana-mana pegawai polis semasa pendengaran representasi habeas corpus, namun, itu mestilah atas pertimbangan 'keselamatan, kepentingan awam atau keperluan untuk melindungi seseorang saksi, keluarga atau sekutu saksi tersebut'. Ini digariskan bawah per. 5(2) dan 9(2)(b) Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Jenayah (Tatacara Lembaga Penasihat) 2014. Oleh itu, membenarkan seorang pegawai polis hadir di persidangan dengan tugasan semata-mata untuk membentang fakta kes adalah melanggar dan bertentangan dengan peruntukan-peruntukan Peraturan 2014. Ini memudaratkan dan menjejaskan keabsahan perintah habeas corpus yang dibuat.
Federick Walta Ngu lwn. Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Yang Lain [2021] 8 CLJ 42 [HC]
TAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Habeas corpus - Perintah tahanan - Representasi - Pendengaran representasi di hadapan Lembaga Penasihat - Prosiding dibantu oleh pegawai polis sebagai pembentang fakta kes - Sama ada suatu ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada memudaratkan prosiding - Sama ada mewajarkan writ habeas corpus - Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959, ss. 3(1), 4(1)(a), 4A, 9, 19A(1) - Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Jenayah (Tatacara Lembaga Penasihat) 2014 peraturan 3(2), 5(4), 11(1), 12(1) - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 5(2), 151(1)
HASBULLAH ADAM PK
- Bagi pihak pemohon - N Sivananthan & Grace s. Nathan; T/n Sivananthan
- Bagi pihak responden - Muhamad Safuan Azhar, Farasyeriza Md Zabani & Nuur Izham Ismail; Peguam Persekutuan
The court, in exercising its discretion to either grant an order of discharge not amounting to acquittal ('DNAA') or a discharge amounting to acquittal ('DAA'), ought to take into consideration that (i) the accused had been in remand in custody pending trial; (ii) the numerous postponements already granted, yet prosecution witnesses still did not turn up at court to testify; (iii) no cogent reasons were given for their absence; and (iv) the trial was still at the prosecution stage and far from closure. Where it is proven that the charges have been hanging over the head of the accused for an inordinate period of time, since the date he was charged, and taking into account that for the sake of public interest, the accused ought to be prosecuted fairly and speedily, an order of DNAA made in terms of s. 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be incorrect, illegal and improper.
Goh Hwa Kiang v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 57 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Criminal revision - Powers of revision - Whether there was such serious injustice as to warrant court's exercise of powers of revision - Whether order of discharge not amounting to acquittal ('DNAA') granted by Sessions Court Judge correct, legal and proper - Whether discretion exercised properly - Accused remanded in custody pending trial - Continuous postponements of trial - Absence of prosecution witnesses - Whether prosecution case concluded at time order of DNAA granted - Whether valid reasons tendered to justify prosecution witnesses' absence at trial - Whether prosecution able to produce evidence to support its case - Whether accused ought to be discharged and acquitted
MUNIANDY KANNYAPPAN JC
- For the accused/applicant - Naran Singh; M/s Naran Singh & Co
- For the respondent - Azrul Faidz Abdul Razak; DPP
A party could seek the termination of a consent order which encompasses a settlement agreement only in a case where time is of essence and the party in breach had not performed its obligations in its entirety within the time frame stipulated by the contract or where there is a total failure of consideration.
Ho Kam Wah v. Began Land Sdn Bhd [2021] 8 CLJ 68 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - Application to set aside consent order - Consent order encompassed settlement agreement - Whether consent order breached - Whether other party entitled to terminate consent order - Whether time expressed as of essence to consent order - Whether party in breach had not performed obligations in its entirety within time frame stipulated by consent order - Whether there was total failure of consideration
SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J
- For the plaintiff - Foo Joon Ling & Chew Zen Tao; M/s Gan Partnership
- For the defendant - Justin Voon; M/s Justin Voon Choi & Wing
A judicial review is not an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority but a judicial review of its decision process. The review is restricted to the decision-making process and not the merits, substance or justification of the decision in question. The court will only intervene in disciplinary cases where there is a fundamental procedural flaw in the decision-making process. It is not the bounded duty of the court to peruse the decision-making process of the disciplinary authority with a magnifying glass to detect possible minor errors. The court's function is to merely ensure the broad categories of natural justice and due process have been complied with.
Mohamad Faisal Anudin Azmi v. Dato’ Mustafa Hj Ibrahim, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No. 1) Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Putrajaya & Ors [2021] 8 CLJ 83 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Judicial review against dismissal from post - Applicant served with two show cause letters one after another - First show cause letter cancelled - Applicant found guilty of charges borne in second show cause letter and dismissed from post - Whether there was double jeopardy in consequent to two show cause letters - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether there was serious flaw in decision-making process - Whether there was procedural impropriety - Whether there was statutory non-compliance - Whether decision of disciplinary authority proportionate and reasonable - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, regs. 37 & 38(g) - Public Services Disciplinary Board Regulation 1993, regs. 15(3) & (4)
AHMAD MURAD ABDUL AZIZ JC
- For the plaintiff - Ebrina Zubir; M/s Maniam Nair & Co
M/s Norhisham & Co - For the defendant - Jailani A Rahman; State Legal Officer, Johor
In an application for impeachment of witness via s. 155(c) read together with s. 145(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, in a situation where the witness admitted to have made the former statement or it was proved that he had made it, the contradictions between the former statement and his evidence in court must be explained to him, preferably by the court. Thereafter, the witness must be given a fair and full opportunity to explain the discrepancies between the two. If the material contradictions remained unexplained by the witness afterwards, the court could proceed to impeach the witness's credit.
PP v. Rengadorai Perumal & Ors [2021] 8 CLJ 99 [HC]
EVIDENCE: Impeachment - Credit of witness - Contradictions between police statement under s. 112 of Criminal Procedure Code and testimony at trial - Whether contradictions material - Whether testimony of witness tainted and unsafe to act upon - Whether evidence of witness credible - Whether application of impeachment ought to be allowed - Evidence Act 1950, ss. 145(1) & 155(c)
AWG ARMADAJAYA AWG MAHMUD JC
- For the appellant - Mustaqim Sukarno; DPP
- For the 1st respondent - G K Sritharan; M/s G K Sritharan & Co
- For the 2nd respondent - Safiah Abdul Aziz; M/s Safiah Aziz & Co
- For the 3rd respondent - Ramesh Vasan & Mariammah Benathan; M/s Ramesh Vasan & Co
The absence of any evidence of service of the writ and statement of claim, more so, where the service of the cause papers ought to have been effected on the Attorney-General's Chambers as the action was, in fact, against the government, rendered the judgment in default irregular, warranting the same to be set aside as of right.
Sergeant Salleh Zakaria & Anor v. Datuk Ramlee Marahaban [2021] 8 CLJ 117 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Judgment in default - Application to set aside - Whether regularly obtained - Whether there was defence on merits - Whether service of process effected on defendants - Whether defendants at liberty to apply to set aside judgment in default - Rules of Court 2012, O. 13 rr. 2, 6, O. 19 rr. 3 & 7
LIM HOCK LENG J
- For the appellants - Andi Razalijaya A Dadi; SFC & Mohd Ashraf Abd Hamid; FC
- For the respondent - Marcel Jude M S Joseph; M/s Marcel Jude & Co
1. Dalam sesuatu permohonan writ habeas corpus, kegagalan pihak polis memaklumkan pemohon akan haknya untuk berkomunikasi dengan keluarga, saudara mara atau kawannya seperti yang disebut bawah s. 28A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ('KTJ') memudaratkan keabsahan perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan bawah s. 19A Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 ('Akta'). Seksyen 4(3) Akta dibaca bersama-sama dengan s. 28A KTJ menjadikan prosedur bawah seksyen terkemudian tersebut suatu prosedur wajib dalam pengeluaran reman s. 4 Akta. Kegagalan tersebut adalah memudaratkan dan menjadi alasan memadai untuk pengeluaran writ habeas corpus.
2. Peraturan 9 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Jenayah (Tatacara Lembaga Penasihat) 2014 memberi budi bicara luas pada Lembaga Penasihat untuk menetapkan tatacara pendengaran representasi. Ini termasuk untuk membenarkan mana-mana pegawai polis hadir semasa pendengaran tersebut. Dalam konteks kes pemohon, kehadiran seorang pegawai polis untuk membentangkan fakta kes adalah dibenarkan mengikut per. 9(2)(b) Peraturan-Peraturan; kehadirannya tidak memudaratkan perintah tahanan dan tidak menyebabkan representasi di hadapan Lembaga Penasihat bercanggah dengan per. 5(4) Peraturan-Peraturan.
Tee Jun Wei lwn. Inspektor Parthiban Suntharam & Yang Lain [2021] 8 CLJ 127 [HC]
TAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Habeas corpus - Perintah tahanan - Kesahan - Tangkapan - Kegagalan memberitahu hak pemohon berkomunikasi dengan keluarga atau kawan - Sama ada fatal - Representasi hadapan Lembaga Penasihat - Prosiding dibantu pegawai polis sebagai pembentang fakta kes - Sama ada suatu ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada bermudarat - Sama ada writ habeas corpus wajar - Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959, ss. 4(1)(a), 4(2)(a), 19A(1) - Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Jenayah (Tatacara Lembaga Penasihat) 2014 peraturan 5(4), 9 - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 1A, A. 2 k. 1(3), A. 41 k. 4 - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 28A - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 151(3)
ABU BAKAR KATAR H
- Bagi pihak pemohon - Foo Fang Leong & Veeranesh Babu Kumaresan; T/n Freda Sabapathy & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Muhamad Safuan Azhar & Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff; Peguam Persekutuan
LNS Article(s)
QISAS IN ISLAMIC CRIMINAL LAW: THE THEORY AND APPLICATION OF JURH [Read excerpt]
by Namirah Hanum Binti Mohamed Albaki[i] Mohd Izzul Azri Bin Mohd Razli[ii] Wan Mohd Firdaus Bin Wan Muhmad[iii] [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxiTHE UNCERTAINTY OF CRYPTOCURRENCY REGULATION
ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE REGULATION WITHOUT STIFLING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INNOVATION+ [Read excerpt]
by Arthur Marusevich* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cx
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) 347/2021 | Customs (Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2021 | 27 August 2021 | 29 August 2021 to 26 December 2021 | ACT 504; ACT 235 |
| PU(A) 346/2021 | Money Services Business (Exemption of Fees) Order 2021 | 27 August 2021 | 30 August 2021 | ACT 731 |
| PU(A) 345/2021 | Registration of Pharmacists (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2021 | 25 August 2021 | 26 August 2021 | ACT 371 |
| PU(A) 344/2021 | Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) Order 2021 | 23 August 2021 | Year of assessment 2021 until the year of assessment 2022 | ACT 53 |
| PU(A) 343/2021 | Ministers of The Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2021 | 21 August 2021 | 21 August 2021 | ACT 2 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 453/2021 | Notice of Affirmative Preliminary Determination of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to The Imports of Stranded Steel Wires for Prestressing Concrete Originating Or Exported From The People's Republic of China | 27 August 2021 | 28 August 2021 | ACT 504 |
| PU(B) 452/2021 | Temporary Exercise of Ministerial Functions | 26 August 2021 | 27 August 2021 | ACT 388 |
| PU(B) 451/2021 | Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 | 26 August 2021 | 27 August 2021 to 9 September 2021 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 450/2021 | Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 | 26 August 2021 | 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 449/2021 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 26 August 2021 | 27 August 2021 | ACT 804 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| ACT 371 | Registration of Pharmacists Act 1951 (Revised 1989) | PU(A) 345/2021 | 26 August 2021 | First Schedule |
| AKTA 50 | Akta Perubatan 1971 | PU(A) 342/2021 | 20 Ogos 2021 | Jadual Kedua |
| ACT 50 | Medical Act 1971 | PU(A) 342/2021 | 20 August 2021 | Second Schedule |
| 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 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 337/2021 | Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan 2021 | PU(A) 343/2021 | 21 Ogos 2021 |
| PU(A) 337/2021 | Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2021 | PU(A) 343/2021 | 21 August 2021 |
| 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 | PU(A) 293/2021 | 5 Julai 2021 |