|
Issue #7/2021
18 February 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
|
PJD REGENCY SDN BHD v.
TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2021] 2 CLJ 441
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ;
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ
[APPEALS NO: 01(f)-29-10-2019(W), 01(f)-30-10-2019(W), 01(i)-40-12-2019(M),
01(f)-41-12-2019(M), 01(f)-42-12-2019(M), 01(f)-4-02-2020(W), 01(f)-31-10-2020(W)]
19 JANUARY 2021
[2021] CLJ (JT1)
(1) Where a housing developer fails to deliver vacant possession within the time stipulated in the statutory sale and purchase agreement, the calculation of the liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') begins from the date of payment of the booking fee and not from the date of the statutory agreement. This is further clarified and cemented by the nature of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 being social legislations. In interpreting a social legislation, the court must give effect to the intention of Parliament and not the intention of parties. Otherwise, the attempt by the legislature to level the playing field by mitigating the inequality of bargaining power would be rendered nugatory and illusory.
(2) While housing developers might think that it is a standard commercial practice to accept booking fees, the development of the law clearly suggests to the contrary. Where the developers act in contravention of the law, they have to accept the resulting consequences. The court would not countenance the by passing of statutory safeguards meant to protect the purchasers.
LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Late delivery - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Date of calculation - Whether begins from date of payment of booking fee or date of sale and purchase agreement - Whether Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 social legislations - Interpretation of - Intent of Parliament - Whether principles of statutory interpretation in relation to social legislation correctly applied - Whether developers to bear full extent of LAD payable to purchasers
LAND LAW: Housing developers - Late delivery of vacant possession - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Date of calculation - Whether begins from date of payment of booking fee or date of sale and purchase agreement - Whether Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 social legislations - Interpretation of - Intent of Parliament - Whether principles of statutory interpretation in relation to social legislation correctly applied - Whether developers to bear full extent of LAD payable to purchasers
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Intention of Parliament - Housing Development (Control and Licensing ) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether social legislations for purpose of regulating relationship between weaker class of persons and stronger class of persons - Whether attempt by legislature to level playing field by mitigating inequality of bargaining power - Whether for protection of interests of purchasers - Whether principles of statutory interpretation in relation to social legislation correctly applied
“The next pertinent consideration is the intention of Parliament in enacting the provision of ss. 39B(2) and 39B(2A) of the DDA 1952. In this regard, the Hansard can be used to assist in interpreting the intention of Parliament. In relation to this, the Hansard of 30 November 2017 is relevant. The Minister's explanation clearly revealed the intention of Parliament, in that the condition in para. (d) of s. 39B(2A) must be satisfied before the discretion to impose the sentence of life imprisonment under s. 39B(2) can be invoked. It is a mandatory requirement. Thus, paras. (a), (b) or (c) of s. 39B(2A) are to be read disjunctively and each of the paragraphs is to be read conjunctively with para. (d).”
“In this regard, the purposive approach must be taken in interpreting s. 39B(2A) to ensure the intention of the Legislature is carried out and this is also in consonance with s. 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.”
“The other important feature of s. 39B(2A) is the usage of the word 'only' before paras. (a), (b), (c) and (d). Therefore, the power of the court to impose the sentence of imprisonment for life and whipping of not less than fifteen strokes is to be exercised only with regard to the circumstances specified in these paragraphs and not in any other circumstances.” – per Nordin Hassan JCA in Mohd Saifuddin Ab Rahman v. PP & Another Appeal [2021] 1 CLJ 343
-
Mohd Anwar Azmi & Satu Lagi lwn. PP Dan Satu Lagi Kes [2018] 1 LNS 2168 (CA) mengesahkan sebahagian kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Mohd Anwar bin Azmi & Yang Lain [2016] 7 CLJ 604
-
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris v. Dama Design & Build Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 2002 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Dama Design & Build Sdn Bhd v. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) [2017] 1 LNS 638
Legal Network Series
|
PERAK SADC MANAGEMENT SDN BHD lwn. TANAH CERIA SDN BHD 1. Kesilapan editorial dalam nama syarikat plaintif di dalam tindakan adalah merupakan satu 'misnomer' semata-mata yang tidak membawa kepada satu bentuk ketidakadilan atau kekeliruan kepada defendan. Kesilapan dalam nama syarikat plaintif boleh diperbetulkan dan justeru adalah tidak wajar dijadikan sebagai satu asas untuk mempertikaikan locus standi plaintif. 2. Plaintif berhak untuk menuntut tanah yang dipajakkan kepada defendan selepas defendan melanggar syarat wajib perjanjian pajakan tanah. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pihak-pihak - Locus standi - Kesilapan editorial dalam nama plaintif - Identiti syarikat - Ketinggalan satu perkataan di dalam nama syarikat plaintif - Sama ada peninggalan perkataan dalam nama plaintif dalam tindakan merupakan suatu 'misnomer' - Sama ada kesilapan editorial dalam nama plaintif telah membawa kepada suatu bentuk ketidakadilan dan kekeliruan kepada defendan - Sama ada nombor pendaftaran syarikat menunjukkan identiti sebenar syarikat - Sama ada kesilapan nama plaintif boleh diperbetulkan - Sama ada locus standi plaintif wajar dipertikaikan semata-mata kerana kesilapan pada nama plaintif KETERANGAN: Keterangan dokumen - Penerimaan masuk - Penerimaan masuk dokumen melalui saksi yang menyediakan dokumen - Saksi yang menandatangani dokumen tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi - Kewujudan dokumen tidak dinafikan di dalam fakta-fakta yang dipersetujui - Sama ada dokumen wajar diterima masuk sebagai keterangan UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Milikan kosong - Tuntutan untuk - Tuntutan untuk milikan kosong selepas perlanggaran syarat wajib perjanjian pajakan kecil - Defendan bertindak menanam kelapa sawit di atas tanah pajakan tanpa kelulusan dan pengetahuan plaintif - Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran syarat wajib perjanjian - Sama ada plaintif berhak untuk menuntut milikan kosong tanah
|
|
|
MOHD SAIDAK NASAK lwn. MOHD ARIFF RIDZWAN ABDUL ALIM DAN SATU LAGI KES 1. Pemandu kenderaan yang gagal berhenti dan memberikan laluan kepada kenderaan yang datang dari arah bawah ke atas dan mempunyai keutamaan jalan sebelum keluar dari simpang jalan untuk menuju ke jalan utama adalah cuai bila terjadinya satu kemalangan. Walau bagaimanapun, pihak bertentangan boleh didapati menyumbang cuai kerana gagal berhati-hati ketika menghampiri simpang jalan walaupun mempunyai keutamaan perjalanan berbanding dengan kenderaan yang keluar dari simpang jalan. 2. Bayaran kompaun yang telah dijelaskan bukanlah bukti yang konklusif bahawa kemalangan tersebut berpunca dari kecuaian satu pihak sepenuhnya. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Perlanggaran kenderaan plaintif dengan kenderaan defendan ketika plaintif keluar dari simpang jalan untuk menuju ke jalan utama - Sama ada plaintif seharusnya berhenti dan memberi laluan kepada kenderaan yang datang dari arah bawah ke atas - Sama ada plaintif telah cuai sumbang dalam kemalangan - Sama ada kenderaan defendan perlu berhati-hati ketika menghampiri simpang jalan - Sama ada saman yang dikeluarkan ke atas plaintif dan bayaran kompaun yang telah dijelaskan merupakan bukti yang konklusif bahawa kemalangan adalah berpunca dari kecuaian plaintif sepenuhnya - Sama ada tanggungan plaintif sebanyak 80% dan defendan sebanyak 20% adalah wajar
|
|
|
SEMANTAN ESTATE (1952) SDN BHD v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS The proposed intervener appointed by the majority shareholders to negotiate settlement for the applicant, and further authorized to deal with the court matter, has a direct interest in the judicial review proceedings as the outcome of the judicial review application would affect its position as negotiator for the applicant and as such, the proposed intervener was a proper person to be heard in the judicial review proceedings. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Intervention - Judicial review proceedings - Proposed intervener appointed and authorized by majority shareholder to deal with court matter - Proposed intervener appointed to negotiate for applicant - Whether proposed intervener was a proper person to be heard in judicial review proceedings - Whether proposed intervener has direct interest in judicial review proceedings - Whether decision of court in relation to mandamus orders sought in judicial review application would affect proposed intervener's interest
|
|
|
AMSTEEL MILLS SDN BHD v. ANN JOO STEEL BERHAD An application for discovery of a wide range of documents to substantiate the plaintiff's new cause of action which was made close to the trial dates amounts to an afterthought action and a fishing expedition. The application for discovery should be dismissed when the requested documents are not relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the matter and when the plaintiff failed to provide any justification to obtain the documents from the defendant. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery - Documents - Claim premised on breach of contract and new cause of action of unjust enrichment - Plaintiff seeking documents relating to revenue gained by defendant - Plaintiff seeking wide range of documents to support new cause of action - Whether documents requested were relevant and necessary for fair disposal of matter - Whether plaintiff had afforded any justification to obtain documents - Whether application amounts to a fishing expedition and afterthought action
|
|
|
YAP SIN THAI v. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 1. The decision of the High Court concerning the amount of compensation for acquisition of land is final and thus not appealable. 2. In assessing the amount of compensation for acquisition of land, the evidential burden is on the applicant to establish a prima facie case through the applicant's valuer's report and the court is not bound to accept the applicant's valuation, although unrebutted. LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Appeal against decision of the High Court as to amount of compensation - Whether decision of High Court concerning amount of compensation was final - Whether there were questions of law involved - Whether compensation was awarded after careful consideration of opinion and assessment of both private and government assessors - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s 49(1) EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Prima facie case - Land acquisition - Assessment of amount of compensation - Whether applicant's valuer's report alone must establish a prima facie case - Whether evidential burden was on applicant to prove his claim - Whether Court is bound to accept applicant's valuation merely because it was not rebutted by respondent - Land Acquisition Act 1960, Third Schedule, para 2(1)
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 2 (Part 4)
(1) Where a housing developer fails to deliver vacant possession within the time stipulated in the statutory sale and purchase agreement, the calculation of the liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') begins from the date of payment of the booking fee and not from the date of the statutory agreement. This is further clarified and cemented by the nature of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 being social legislations. In interpreting a social legislation, the court must give effect to the intention of Parliament and not the intention of parties. Otherwise, the attempt by the legislature to level the playing field by mitigating the inequality of bargaining power would be rendered nugatory and illusory.
(2) While housing developers might think that it is a standard commercial practice to accept booking fees, the development of the law clearly suggests to the contrary. Where the developers act in contravention of the law, they have to accept the resulting consequences. The court would not countenance the by passing of statutory safeguards meant to protect the purchasers.
PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] 2 CLJ 441 [FC]
LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Late delivery - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Date of calculation - Whether begins from date of payment of booking fee or date of sale and purchase agreement - Whether Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 social legislations - Interpretation of - Intent of Parliament - Whether principles of statutory interpretation in relation to social legislation correctly applied - Whether developers to bear full extent of LAD payable to purchasers
LAND LAW: Housing developers - Late delivery of vacant possession - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Date of calculation - Whether begins from date of payment of booking fee or date of sale and purchase agreement - Whether Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 social legislations - Interpretation of - Intent of Parliament - Whether principles of statutory interpretation in relation to social legislation correctly applied - Whether developers to bear full extent of LAD payable to purchasers
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Intention of Parliament - Housing Development (Control and Licensing ) Act 1966 and Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether social legislations for purpose of regulating relationship between weaker class of persons and stronger class of persons - Whether attempt by legislature to level playing field by mitigating inequality of bargaining power - Whether for protection of interests of purchasers - Whether principles of statutory interpretation in relation to social legislation correctly applied
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
- For the appellant - Lambert Rasaratnam, Sean Yeow Huang Meng & Lim Bee Sie; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhil
- For the respondents - K L Wong & Wong Renn Xin; M/s K L Wong
- For the appellants - CK Lim, Pretam Singh, Chin Yan Leng, David Yii Hee Kiet, Julian Chan, Rajasegaran Karuppiah, Kalvinder Singh, Mae Taye & Norlina Wakijo; M/s Taye & Co
- For the respondent - Sheena Sinnappah & Valerie Fernando; M/s Sheena Valerie & Partners
- For the appellant - Dhiren Rene Norendra & Saroop Rampal; M/s Norendra & Yap
- For the respondents - Ariadne Lee Pei Pei & Yeoh Jit Wei; M/s Pei Chambers
- For the appellant - Andrew Davis, Zaitul Naziah Mohd Soib & Pavithara Thevi Ramachandran; M/s Andrew Davis & Co
- For the respondents - Ariadne Lee Pei Pei & Yeoh Jit Wei; M/s Pei Chambers
- For the Country Garden Holdings Ltd Co - Gopal Sri Ram, James Monteiro, John Skelchy, Benjamin Tun Yun Ming, Hanani Hadi & Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse; M/s James Monteiro
- For the National House Buyers Association - Viola Lettice De Cruz & Keoh Kean Kang; M/s V L Decruz & Co
Dalam taksiran ganti rugi berkenaan isu pencerobohan tanah, apabila kedua-dua belah pihak tidak menyedari tentang pencerobohan, maka tidak wujud elemen mala fide atau niat menceroboh pada pihak defendan. Jumlah ganti rugi munasabah yang boleh dipertimbangkan kepada pihak plaintif perlulah mengambil kira niat pihak defendan, terutama sekali apabila wujud kecuaian yang tidak disengajakan.
Johandra Realty Sdn Bhd & Satu Lagi lwn. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pengairan Dan Saliran Malaysia & Satu Lagi [2021] 2 CLJ 485 [CA]
TORT: Pencerobohan - Ganti rugi - Tuntutan - Prosiding - Pencerobohan ke atas tanah milik pihak plaintif - Sama ada wujudnya elemen mala fide - Sama ada pihak defendan harus membuat pengambilan balik tanah-tanah terlibat atau membayar kos baik pulih tanah kepada pihak plaintif - Sama ada tuntutan ganti rugi ke atas pencerobohan berdasarkan kelebihan guna pakai dan/atau mesne profits dibenarkan - Sama ada ganti rugi kehilangan pendapatan munasabah diberikan kepada pihak plaintif - Sama ada tuntutan kehilangan masa depan pihak plaintif berasas - Sama ada tuntutan ganti rugi teladan wajar dan dibenarkan
GANTI RUGI: Tuntutan - Taksiran - Prosiding - Pencerobohan ke atas tanah milik pihak plaintif - Sama ada wujudnya elemen mala fide - Sama ada pihak defendan harus membuat pengambilan balik tanah-tanah terlibat atau membayar kos baik pulih tanah kepada pihak plaintif - Sama ada tuntutan ganti rugi ke atas pencerobohan berdasarkan kelebihan guna pakai dan/atau mesne profits dibenarkan - Sama ada ganti rugi kehilangan pendapatan munasabah diberikan kepada pihak plaintif - Sama ada tuntutan kehilangan masa depan pihak plaintif berasas - Sama ada tuntutan ganti rugi teladan wajar dan dibenarkan
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH HMR
LEE SWEE SENG HMR
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI HMR
- Bagi pihak perayu - Gurdial Singh Nijar Abraham Au, Julie Lim Siew Bee & Roger Chan Weng Keng
- Bagi pihak responden - Asliza Ali; PKP
The phrase 'unless the court so directs' in s. 254(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly means that the court is given the discretionary power to direct a discharge amounting to an acquittal which discretion is to be exercised judiciously; it must not be seen as infringing or whittling down the power and authority of the Public Prosecutor.
PP v. Ambika M A Shanmugam [2021] 2 CLJ 522 [CA]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Discontinuance - Murder - Prosecution discontinued trial and applied for accused to be discharged not amounting to an acquittal ('DNAA') - Trial judge proceeded to acquit and discharge accused amounting to acquittal ('DAA') - Appeal against decision of trial judge - Whether court could acquit and discharge accused pursuant to s. 254(3) of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether trial judge correct in exercising discretion to direct an acquittal against accused - Whether there was failure to consider power of Public Prosecutor under art. 145 of Federal Constitution and s. 376 of Criminal Procedure Code in determining conduct of criminal prosecutions
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - 'unless the court so directs' - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 254(3) - Intention of Parliament - Whether court given discretionary power to direct for discharge amounting to acquittal - Whether discretion to be exercised judiciously
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA;
NORDIN HASSAN JCA
- For the respondent - Anbananthan Yathiraju; M/s Anba & Assocs
- For the appellant - Dasuki Mokhtar & Nurshafini Mustafha; DPPs
Based on the terms of hibah adopted in its business model, the modus operandi adopted by the gold investment firm, Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd ('GMSB'), was not ordinary trade in gold. The terms on hibah and the express terms of no buy-back guarantee were mere guises and camouflage in an attempt to conceal the company's involvement in deposit-taking without a valid licence, an offence under s. 25(1) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989. The accused persons, the directors of the company, having knowledge of the company's business model, could not escape culpability as they were taken to at least harbour some reasonable suspicion as to the business model practised by GMSB and must undertake steps to make further inquiries rather than just rely on what was advised to them by persons appointed by the company itself.
PP v. Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal [2021] 2 CLJ 536 [HC]
BANKING: Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 - Section 25 - Offences - Receiving deposits without valid license - Company involved in scheme of sale and buy-back of gold - Allegation that business model adopted by company amounted to deposit-taking - Whether company accepted deposit without valid licence - Whether monies received, acquired and/or transferred monies were proceeds of unlawful activity
CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, s. 4(1) - Money laundering - Company involved in scheme of sale and buy-back of gold - Money trail showed remittances linked to companies where accused persons were directors and companies having related businesses - Whether element of mens rea for offence of money laundering established - Whether offence of money laundering established
CRIMINAL LAW: Banking offences - Company receiving deposits without valid licence - Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989, s. 25(1) - Company involved in scheme of sale and buy-back of gold - Allegation that business model adopted by company amounted to deposit-taking - Whether company accepted deposit without valid licence - Whether monies received, acquired and/or transferred monies were proceeds of unlawful activity
AHMAD SHAHRIR MOHD SALLEH JC
- For the appellant - Tengku Amir Zaki Tengku Abdul Rahman, Harris Ong Mohd Jeffery Ong, Alvin Ong Heng Kiat & Hardeep Kaur; DPPs
- For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th & 13th respondents - Gooi Soon Seng, Kulaselvi Sandrasegaram & Choong Kak Sen; M/s Gooi & Azura
- For the 4th & 12th respondents - Gobinath Mohanna & Jaya Prem; M/s The Law Office of Mohanna & Co
- For the appellant - Tengku Amir Zaki Tengku Abdul Rahman, Harris Ong Mohd Jeffery Ong, Alvin Ong Heng Kiat, Hardeep Kaur; DPPs
- For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 5th respondents - Gooi Soon Seng, Kulaselvi Sandrasegaram & Choong Kak Sen; M/s Gooi & Azura
- For the 4th respondent - Gobinath Mohanna & Jaya Prem; M/s The Law Office of Mohanna & Co
- For the 6th respondent - Nasbal Harun & Mohd Irzan Iswatt Mohd Noor; M/s Haniff Khatri
CLJ Article(s)
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT:
A VALID VARIATION ORDER - IMPORTANCE OF VARIATION ORDER IN WRITING [Read excerpt]
by WILLIAM TING SIEW CHON* [2021] 2 CLJ(A) i
LNS Article(s)
FAKING YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT –
COMPARING THE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA WITH THE POSITION IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
by Harneshpal Karamjit Singh* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxiiCOVID-19 AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT:
A CASE STUDY OF THE MALAYSIAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [Read excerpt]
by Ahmad Masum[i] Muhammad Hassan Ahmad[ii] S.M.M. Nafees[iii] [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxiiiRECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS IN MALAYSIA: AN ANALYSIS [Read excerpt]
by Imran Shah Misman* Nur Ezan Rahmat** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxiv
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 | Not Yet In Force | 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)
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 95/2021 | Notice Under Section 70 | 17 February 2021 | 18 February 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(B) 94/2021 | Appointment of Notaries Public Under Subsection 3(1) | 16 February 2021 | Specified in column (3) of the Schedule | ACT 115 |
| PU(B) 93/2021 | Returns and Statements of Election Expenses - Sabah | 16 February 2021 | 17 February 2021 | ACT 5 |
| PU(B) 92/2021 | Notice Under Section 70 | 16 February 2021 | 17 February 2021 | ACT 333 |
| PU(B) 91/2021 | Notice Under Section 70 | 15 February 2021 | 16 February 2021 | ACT 333 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 21/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 60/2021 | 16 Februari 2021 | Peraturan 5 |
| PU(A) 21/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 60/2021 | 16 February 2021 | Regulation 5 |
| PU(A) 361/2019 | Perintah Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia (Ses) 2019 | PU(A) 59/2021 | 16 Februari 2021 | Perenggan 3 |
| PU(A) 361/2019 | Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Cess) Order 2019 | PU(A) 59/2021 | 16 February 2021 | Paragraph 3 |
| PU(A) 22/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 2) 2021 | PU(A) 57/2021 | 15 Februari 2021 | Jadual Pertama |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 317/2020 | Perintah Koperasi (Pengambilalihan Kawalan Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Berhad) (Pelantikan) 2020 | PU(A) 58/2021 | 16 Februari 2021 |
| PU(A) 317/2020 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Berhad) (Appointment) Order 2020 | PU(A) 58/2021 | 16 February 2021 |
| PU(A) 10/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 23/2021 | 22 January 2021 |
| PU(A) 9/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 22/2021 | 22 January 2021 |
| PU(A) 8/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 21/2021 | 22 January 2021 |