Back to Top

Issue #37/2021
16 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

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

MAPLE AMALGAMATED SDN BHD & ANOR v. BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BHD [2021] 8 CLJ 409
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-54-09-2020(A)]
23 JULY 2021

An agreement for the sale and purchase of an estate land by way of asset sale and purchase agreements pursuant to a Bai Bithamin Ajil financing is not in breach of s. 214A of the National Land Code; it remains so even if no prior approval has been obtained from the Estate Land Board. Taking heed of this court's decision in Gula Perak Berhad v. Datuk Lim Sue Beng & Other Appeals, and reading s. 214A NLC strictly while giving it and its subsections their natural and ordinary meaning in the context of the provisions' object and purpose, it is clear that a Bai Bithamin Ajil financing scheme is not caught by the words 'transfer, convey or dispose of' in s. 214A. The words 'transfer, convey or dispose of', being analogous, should have their meaning confined to Parliament's intention to prevent dispossession of land whether in law or equity. They were only meant to cater to a comprehensively narrow intent of preventing actual or outright transfers and fragmentation. Reading the law this way accords with commercial realities, avoids contravening any law and favours commercial transactions such as the one transacted in this case.

LAND LAW: Agreement - Unconditional agreement - Estate land - Parties entered into sale and purchase agreement - Bai bithamin ajil financing - No prior approval obtained from Estate Land Board before entering into agreements - Whether transfer of estate land could only be done with approval of Estate Land Board - Whether there was intention to 'transfer, convey or dispose of' land - Whether unconditional agreement in breach of s. 214A of National Land Code


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“It can be seen from the definition under s. 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Consolidated and Revised 1989) that a public place includes not only areas used for access but includes other locations and facilities to which the public has access. Although the examples of the places used in s. 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Consolidated and Revised 1989) are more expansive, the generality of the words that follow demonstrates that the space that can be considered a public place is not restricted and is limitless for as long as the place is of general resort and can be accessed either by payment or by public access. Thus, in this court's view the words '... and any place (emphasis added) to which the public has or may have access' in s. 7(4) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 does not serve to limit the scope of public places to only those areas described before that but extends also to all other places where the public has access whether admission is through payment or gratuitously”

– per Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid JC in Lee Lye Poh v. PP And Other Appeals [2021] 5 CLJ 231

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 943

PP lwn. MAHMAD YASIN IBRAHIM

Suatu hukuman yang ringan wajar dipertimbangkan apabila tiada keterangan berkenaan sebarang ancaman, penderaan atau penderitaan ke atas migran dikemukakan dalam kesalahan yang melibatkan penyeludupan migran. Bilamana aktiviti penyeludupan migran hanya melibatkan orang dewasa sahaja, hukuman yang lebih ringan wajar diberikan berbanding dengan penyeludupan migran yang melibatkan kanak-kanak.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghukuman - Peringanan - Kesalahan bawah s. 26H Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 - Pengakuan bersalah - Pihak pendakwaan tidak mengemukakan sebarang faktor pemberat khusus - Ketiadaan kesalahan lampau - Ketiadaan penderitaan dan ancaman terhadap migran - Penyeludupan migran dewasa tanpa melibatkan kanak-kanak - Tertuduh kehilangan pendapatan melalui pencen sebagai pesara penjawat kerajaan - Sama ada pengakuan salah tertuduh wajar dipertimbangkan dalam peringanan hukuman - Sama ada faktor usia dan kesihatan serta keinsafan tertuduh wajar dipertimbangkan - Sama ada hukuman yang ringan wajar dipertimbangkan apabila penyeludupan migran tidak melibatkan kanak-kanak

  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Lim Saw Sim; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh - Tan Guat Cheng; M/s GC Tan & Co

[2019] 1 LNS 944

PP lwn. NOR HANIZAM MOHD NOOR

Hak maruah dan keaiban seseorang terutamanya golongan wanita di Malaysia adalah sesuatu perkara yang dipandang berat dan sebarang perbuatan yang memperlekehkan atau mencabul hak maruah dan keaiban tersebut adalah dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang serius. Bagi maksud s. 509 Kanun Keseksaan, gangguan kesantunan seseorang berlaku dalam apa jua cara atau bentuk termasuk perbuatan merakam video tanpa izin mangsa dan menyebarkan video tersebut.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Hukuman 2 bulan penjara bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 509 Kanun Keseksaan - Gangguan kesantunan wanita - Tertuduh merakam wanita yang sedang mandi dan kemudiannya menghebahkan video tersebut - Sama ada kesalahan gangguan kesantunan adalah kesalahan yang serius - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan adalah memadai dan setimpal dengan kesalahan yang telah dilakukan oleh tertuduh - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan mencerminkan niat Parlimen - Sama ada faktor kepentingan awam harus diberi lebih pertimbangan berbanding dengan faktor mitigasi tertuduh

PERKATAAN & ISTILAH: 'mengganggu kesantutan' - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 509 - Tafsiran - Sama ada membawa maksud pencerobohan kesantunan seseorang dalam apa jua cara atau bentuk - Sama ada gangguan kesantunan termasuk perbuatan merakam video tanpa izin mangsa dan menyebarkan video tersebut

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Shafiq Sazalli; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
  • Bagi pihak responden - Ravi Chandran; M/s SC Ravi & Associates

[2020] 1 LNS 26

SYED OTHMAN KONCHONG v. PP

The presumption under s. 50 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 can be invoked against an officer who has corruptly engaged in soliciting gratification although the gratification money was received through another officer and the latter was acquitted.

CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption - Corruptly soliciting gratification - Payments solicited to ensure action was not taken against foreign workers for not possessing valid documents - Accused was a police officer at time of offence - Payments were made through another officer at instruction of accused - Officer who collected money was acquitted by Court - Whether presumption under s. 50 of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 ('MACC Act') applicable against accused - Whether it was incumbent on prosecution to first show a corrupt purpose before presumption under s. 50 MACC Act could be invoked

  • For the appellant - Najib Zakaria; M/s Najib Zakaria, Hisham & Co
  • For the respondent - Mohd Heikal Ismail; Deputy Public Prosecutor, MACC

[2020] 1 LNS 40

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA v. SYARIKAT ISMAIL IBRAHIM SDN BHD & ORS

Section 42(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') allows an applicant to seek the intervention of the Court with reference to any question of law. A dispute in relation to an arbitrator's decision on liability as well as quantum on a lump sum contract, will not pass the threshold for intervention under s. 42 of AA as well as the party autonomy concept by virtue of s. 37 of AA when the disputed question had been the subject matter before the arbitrator. An application under s. 42 of AA is an abuse of process where no prudent steps have been taken to enable the arbitrator to deliver an enforceable order.

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Application under s. 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') - Mixed question of facts and law - Dispute in relation to arbitrator's decision on liability and quantum on a lump sum contract - Whether there was basis for Court's intervention under s. 42 of AA - Whether disputed question had been subject matter before arbitrator - Whether questions posed pass threshold test on issue of question of law - Whether a question of law must have nexus to breach of rule of law - Whether questions ought to have been dealt with under s. 37 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether prudent steps had been taken to enable arbitrator to deliver an enforceable order - Whether application was an abuse of process

  • For the appellant - Shamsurryati Shamsudin, Azza Azmi & Mohd Afif Ahmad Zamanhuri; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Jabatan Peguam Negara; Unit Timbangtara & ADR Bahagian Guaman
  • For the respondent - Joseph Ting & Alan Tan Fu Seng; M/s Joseph Ting & Co

[2020] 1 LNS 58

JANG KIM LUANG @ YEO KIM LUNG (f) v. TERENCE TAN SUAN GUAN & ORS

An administratrix of a deceased bankrupt can act and commence legal action to exercise the personal right of the deceased bankrupt without obtaining the sanction of the Director General of Insolvency.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Locus standi - Action brought by administratrix of deceased bankrupt - Action brought without obtaining sanction of Director General of Insolvency - Action to challenge validity of letters of administration - Whether plaintiff was merely exercising personal right of deceased bankrupt - Whether plaintiff was competent to bring action as an adminsitratrix of estate of deceased bankrupt - Whether sanction required for administratrix to act in estate of deceased bankrupt

  • For the plaintiff - Lim Kian Leong, Tan C'Heng Leong & Tobias Lim; M/s KP Lu & Tan
  • For the 1st defendant (encl. 40) - Gopal Sreenevasan & Simrenjeet Singh; M/s Simrenjeet, Tay & Co
  • For the 3rd defendant (encl. 41) - Simrenjeet Singh (MOB); M/s Brendan Siva
  • For the 4th to 7th defendants (encl. 43) - Michael Chow & Wendy Yeong; M/s Michael Chow

CLJ 2021 Volume 8 (Part 3)

A writ of habeas corpus must be directed only against the current detention order. Consequently, where the detenu has been released and is no longer being physically detained, no writ of habeas corpus could be filed against the detaining authority. That the detenu continued to be detained pursuant to a separate detention does not change the fact that the earlier detention and detention order has become academic; it censures the need for any writ of habeas corpus.
Goh Leong Yong v. ASP Khairul Fairoz Rodzuan & Ors [2021] 8 CLJ 331 [FC]

|

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Constitutionality - Powers of court - Whether s. 4 of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') breached art. 121 of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 4 of POCA constitutional - Whether Parliament encroached into power of court by prescribing 21 days remand period under s. 4(1)(a) of POCA - Whether power of Federal Court to depart from its earlier decision must be exercised sparingly

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Detenu detained under different statutes at different period of time - Writ of habeas corpus filed against detention order under s. 4(1)(a) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Whether challenge correctly directed to current detention order - Whether detenu already released when application filed - Whether subject of detention order under s. 4(1)(a) no longer issue

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Detention - Validity - Detention order under s. 4(1)(a) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Whether detention order complied with requirements under s. 4(1)(a) - Whether detenu informed of grounds of arrest - Whether detention order valid and lawful - Whether there was mala fides in detention - Whether mala fides in arrest amounted to procedural non-compliance

 

VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ

  • For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Gobind Singh Deo, Jacky Loi Yap Loong, Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse, Peter Siew, Jin Wen, Maneesha Kaur & Mannvir Singh; M/s TY Teh & Partners
  • For the respondent - Farah Ezlin Yusop Khan, Muhammad Sinti & Nur Jihan Mohd Azman; SFCs

An agreement for the sale and purchase of an estate land by way of asset sale and purchase agreements pursuant to a Bai Bithamin Ajil financing is not in breach of s. 214A of the National Land Code; it remains so even if no prior approval has been obtained from the Estate Land Board. Taking heed of this court's decision in Gula Perak Berhad v. Datuk Lim Sue Beng & Other Appeals, and reading s. 214A NLC strictly while giving it and its subsections their natural and ordinary meaning in the context of the provisions' object and purpose, it is clear that a Bai Bithamin Ajil financing scheme is not caught by the words 'transfer, convey or dispose of' in s. 214A. The words 'transfer, convey or dispose of', being analogous, should have their meaning confined to Parliament's intention to prevent dispossession of land whether in law or equity. They were only meant to cater to a comprehensively narrow intent of preventing actual or outright transfers and fragmentation. Reading the law this way accords with commercial realities, avoids contravening any law and favours commercial transactions such as the one transacted in this case.
Maple Amalgamated Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd [2021] 8 CLJ 409 [FC]

LAND LAW: Agreement - Unconditional agreement - Estate land - Parties entered into sale and purchase agreement - Bai bithamin ajil financing - No prior approval obtained from Estate Land Board before entering into agreements - Whether transfer of estate land could only be done with approval of Estate Land Board - Whether there was intention to 'transfer, convey or dispose of' land - Whether unconditional agreement in breach of s. 214A of National Land Code

 

 

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ

  • For the appellants - Gopal Sri Ram, Wong Rhen Yen, Jamie Wong Siew Min, Emily Wong, Kelvesh Deshenraj, How Li Nee & Marcus Lee; M/s Jamie Wong
  • For the respondent - Khoo Guan Huat, Ratha Govindasamy & Ng Kar Man; M/s Skrine

When an application to re-amend a defence and counterclaim is made during trial and before the completion of a trial, the order of the court allowing such application is a ruling made in the course of a trial. An appeal does not lie against a decision in an amendment application made in the course of a trial when such a decision does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. Thus, any appeal made against such decision of the court is incompetent in limine and ought to be struck off.
Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd v. Gagnar Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 8 CLJ 434 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Proceedings - Re-amendment to defence and counterclaim - Appeal against - Preliminary objection raised - Whether order allowing re-amendment appealable - Whether order allowing re-amendment 'ruling made in course of trial' - Whether application to re-amend made during trial and before completion of trial - Whether decision disposed of rights of parties - Whether appeal incompetent in limine and ought to be struck off

 

 

KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA

  • For the appellant - Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi & Wong Han Wey; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
  • For the respondents - Naseema Jalaludheen & Rachel See Aimay; M/s Cheah Teh & Su

To sustain a charge of murder, the prosecution must bring the case under any one of the four limbs of s. 300 of the Penal Code ('PC'). If the prosecution fails to discharge or establish any one of the four limbs of s. 300 of the PC, the charge of murder would not have been made out and the case is probably one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s. 299 of the PC. It is imperative for the trial judge to appreciate the distinction between the definitions under ss. 299 and 300 of the PC before deciding which offence to convict the appellant with.
Nasir Ramli v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 448 [CA]

|

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Conviction - Accused charged for murder - Deceased passed away due to head injury caused by blunt force trauma - Nature of injuries sustained by deceased and conduct of accused - Whether pointed to accused's intention to murder deceased - Whether accused's defence credible - Whether raised reasonable doubt on prosecution's case - Whether charge ought to be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Penal Code, ss. 300, 302 & 304(a)

CRIMINAL LAW: Offence - Murder - Accused charged for murder - Deceased passed away due to head injury caused by blunt force trauma - Nature of injuries sustained by deceased and conduct of accused - Whether pointed to accused's intention to murder deceased - Whether accused's defence credible - Whether raised reasonable doubt on prosecution's case - Whether charge ought to be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Penal Code, ss. 300, 302 & 304(a)

 

ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA

  • For the appellant - Ranbir Singh Sangha; M/s Ranbir S Sangha & Co Advocs
  • For the respondent - Ahmad Sazilee Abdul Khairi; DPP

The decision by the State Legislative Assembly to review the compensation awarded, in a wayleave procedure under s. 11(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990, by the Land Administrator, who is part of the government agencies led by the Chief Minister, who in turn, heads the State Legislative Assembly, was legal and proper and was binding on the parties.
Dusunku Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2021] 8 CLJ 462 [HC]

LAND LAW: Wayleave - Compensation - Variation of amount of compensation upon appeal to Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri ('MMK') - Whether decision of MMK allowing appeal ultra vires - Whether decision binding on parties - Whether TNB breached statutory duty in failing to settle payment - Whether challenge against MMK's decision involved public law elements - Whether to challenge by way of judicial review and not collateral attack - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 11(1), (6), (7) & 16(2)

 

 

GHAZALI CHA J

  • For the plaintiff - CC Chang; M/s Syarikat Ng & Anuar
  • For the defendant - Alvin John, Wong Chin Eng & Nadia Falisha Azlan Shah Aziz; M/s Alvin John & Partners

The requirements of O. 41 r. 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 for the admissibility of an affidavit in support of an application, deposed by a person considered illiterate because he did not fully understand the English language, are mandatory in nature and not mere technicalities. The person administering the oath must ensure that the deponent understands the contents of the affidavit; failing which, the affidavit would be rendered invalid and shall not be admissible in evidence.
Kunshan Yuanjianghong Textile Co Ltd v. Cheow Chee Yong & Anor [2021] 8 CLJ 476 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavits - Affidavit in support of application - Admissibility - Deponent did not fully understand English - Whether considered 'illiterate' within meaning of O. 41 r. 3 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether compliance with O. 41 r. 3 mandatory or mere technicalities - Whether affidavit translated by court interpreter - Whether usage of Form 74(d) jurat correct - Whether deponent understood affidavit before signing - Whether signing on English version sufficient - Whether requirements of O. 41 r. 3 complied with - Whether certification in jurat fulfilled requirements

 

 

WAN MUHAMMAD AMIN WAN YAHYA JC

  • For the plaintiff - Yeoh Tung Seng & Lee Su Ting; M/s Yeoh & Joanne
  • For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Rajesh Kumar Gejinder Nath & Raveena Kaur Vessy Inderjit Singh; M/s Vicknaraj, RD Ratnam Rajesh Kumar & Assocs

In a situation where an affiliate club member's right to utilise a private organisation's premises is derived from a reciprocal arrangement entered between the private organisation and an affiliate club, if such right is removed unilaterally, the affiliate club member cannot initiate an action seeking to declare the decision to remove the right made by the private organisation on the ground of denial of natural justice because the parties privy to the reciprocal arrangement are the private organisation and affiliate club; not the latter's members. Natural justice would only apply to the private organisation's own members. The courts would also be slow to interfere with the decision as this matter pertained to domestic affairs of the private organisation.
Navinchandran GM Naidu v. Kassim Abd Rahman [2021] 8 CLJ 495 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Writ and statement of claim - Application to strike out affiliate club member's action - Member sought declaration that private social club's decision to declare him as persona non grata null and void - Whether plain and obvious case for striking out - Right to enter and utilise premises pursuant to reciprocal arrangement entered - Whether member privy to reciprocal arrangement - Whether 'invited member' - Whether private organisation obligated to issue show cause or confer right to be heard - Whether declaration that member as persona non grata in accordance with club's constitution - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b), (c) & (d)

 

 

QUAY CHEW SOON JC

  • For the plaintiff - David Samuel & Yasinthra; M/s Chambers of Firdaus
  • For the defendant - S Sri Sujalan; M/s Fauzi Ngah & Neasa

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. AN OVERVIEW OF ANIMALS AND THE LAW IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by Arif Fahmi Md Yusof* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxiv

  2. [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxiv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    AN OVERVIEW OF ANIMALS AND THE LAW IN MALAYSIA

    by
    Arif Fahmi Md Yusof*

    Abstract

    There is limited discussion on animals and the law relating to them in Malaysian jurisdiction. While the law pertaining to humans is widely discussed, the law relating to animals is sometimes unintentionally left out. Despite this, laws to regulate the treatment of animals in many aspects, including animal welfare and animal protection, have been developed. The Federal Constitution empowers both Federal and State governments to enact laws involving animal matters. This article examines selected Federal and State laws relating to animals in Malaysia.

    Introduction

    Malaysia’s diverse and natural environment supports a various range of animals, including native and migrant species, as well as wild and domestic animals. Wild animals are commonly protected for conservation and environmental purposes. Domestic animals play a vital economic role in Malaysia, particularly in agricultural activities. Malaysia engages in extensive and vast livestock production, including buffalo, cattle, goats, sheep, and swine (pigs). Some domestic animals are kept as companions. The most popular companion animals in Malaysia are cats and dogs. Other animals such as rabbits, hamsters, goldfish, sugar gliders, snakes, geckos, and tortoises are also kept by Malaysians as pets.

    . . .

    *Associate Professor, Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM). Email: fahmi@usim.edu.my.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. A GENERAL EVALUATION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE UK, US AND MALAYSIA WITH REFERENCE TO CORPORATE SCANDALS [Read excerpt]
    by Jaganraj Ramachandran* Lahveenya Pancalingam** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxvi

  4. [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxvi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    A GENERAL EVALUATION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE UK, US AND MALAYSIA WITH REFERENCE TO CORPORATE SCANDALS

    by
    Jaganraj Ramachandran*
    Lahveenya Pancalingam**

    Abstract

    In the new global economy, corporate social responsibility has become a central issue of most governments, but the number of business owners being socially irresponsible is dramatically increasing. Treating the stakeholders of the company ethically or responsibly can be a manner of CSR. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been seen as a competitive advantage of companies if they exercise their duties or responsibilities towards society.[1] However, there are a number of companies that have failed to abide by the terms of CSR and have proceeded to abuse their long-standing position in society. In this article, we shall proceed to examine the basic principles of Corporate Social Responsibility, its relevance in the modern world, together with examples of Corporate Social Responsibility.

    . . .

    *LL.B (Hons) (London), LL.M (Malaya) Senior Lecturer, Brickfields Asia College.

    **LL.B (Hons) (London), LL.M (Northumbria), Law Lecturer, Multimedia University Melaka.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. THE CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
    SELF-INDULGENT VIRTUE-SIGNALLING, OR SENSIBLE SELF-INTEREST?+
    [Read excerpt]
    by Marcus Hassall* [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxv

  6. [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxv
    logo
    AUSTRALIA

    THE CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
    SELF-INDULGENT VIRTUE-SIGNALLING, OR SENSIBLE SELF-INTEREST?+


    by
    Marcus Hassall*

    As part of ACT Law Week 2021, barrister Marcus Hassall held a seminar to explain Australia's new Climate Change Bill, starting with a confession that, as a lawyer (and barrister), he is not averse to a bit of 'virtue-signalling'. This is a modified and abridged version of that presentation.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently told the Business Council of Australia – an entity which has expressed public support for Zali Steggall OAM MP’s Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 (Cth) (the Climate Change Bill)[1] – that Australia ‘will not achieve net zero in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities’, nor by ‘taxing our industries that provide livelihoods for millions of Australians off the planet’. Rather, according to the Prime Minister, Australia’s climate change ambitions will be achieved through ‘the best technology and the animal spirits of capitalism’.[2]

    . . .

    +Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 260 Winter 2021.

    *Barrister.

    I acknowledge the very significant assistance provided by Kimberley Slapp, ANU law student, in carrying research and preparing a first draft of this presentation. I note also that the views expressed in this paper are my own.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

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 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; and s 10 (only for new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the Tourism Tax Act 2017 [Act 791]); 1 July 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 10 (except for the provision of new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the principal Act) and 21 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) 363/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (National Recovery Plan) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 10 September 2021 10 September 2021 PU(A) 293/2021
PU(A) 362/2021 Financial Services (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2021 10 September 2021 1 October 2021 ACT 758
PU(A) 361/2021 Financial Services (Exemption) (No. 3) Order 2021 10 September 2021 11 September 2021 to 24 March 2024 ACT 758
PU(A) 360/2021 Financial Services (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2021 10 September 2021 25 March 2021 ACT 758
PU(A) 359/2021 Financial Services (Exemption) Order 2021 10 September 2021 25 March 2021 ACT 758

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 467/2021 Appointment of Registrar for Persons With Disabilities 14 September 2021 26 April 2021 ACT 685
PU(B) 466/2021 Appointment of Board Officer 14 September 2021 2 July 2021 ACT 334
PU(B) 465/2021 Appointment of Probation Officers 14 September 2021 30 September 2021 ACT 611
PU(B) 464/2021 Appointment of Protectors 14 September 2021 30 September 2021 ACT 611
PU(B) 463/2021 Notice to Third Parties 14 September 2021 15 September 2021 ACT 613

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 293/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Pelan Pemulihan Negara) 2021 PU(A) 363/2021 10 September 2021 Peraturan baharu 10A
PU(A) 293/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (National Recovery Plan) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 363/2021 10 September 2021 New regulation 10A
AKTA 520 Akta Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia 1994 PU(A) 358/2021 13 September 2021 Jadual Keempat
ACT 520 Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia Act 1994 PU(A) 358/2021 13 September 2021 Fourth Schedule
PU(A) 175/2011 Johor Port Authority (Pasir Gudang Port) (Scale of Charges) By-Laws 2011 PU(A) 357/2021 9 September 2021 By-laws 3, 4, 8, 11, new by-law 12A, by-laws 17, 19, 20, new by-law 21A, by-laws 22 - 24, 28, new by-law 28A, by-laws 29 - 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42, 46; First, Second and Third Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(B) 101/2015 Notification of Scale of Rates 2015 PU(B) 457/2021 9 September 2021
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