CLJ Bulletin #17/2022 (28 April 2022)

Issue #17/2022

28 April 2022

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
1. GENTING MALAYSIA BHD v. PESURUHJAYA PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI & ORS [2022] 4 CLJ 399
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2022 Volume 4 (Part 2)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

GENTING MALAYSIA BHD v. PESURUHJAYA PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI & ORS [2022] 4 CLJ 399
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
NOORIN BADARUDDIN J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: WA-25-83-02-2020]
25 DECEMBER 2021

The provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010, being provisions of a specific Act enacted for the protection of personal data, must prevail over the general provisions of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA'), including s. 81. The Director-General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') could not be allowed to have access to the database of personal information of a company's customers, or any taxpayer for that matter, until and unless the DGIR demonstrates that there are reasonable suspicions that a specific, identified and/or identifiable customer had not complied with any material provision of the ITA relating to the assessment or collection of tax so as to warrant a disclosure of the personal data of that particular customer. The DGIR cannot seek a blanket disclosure and conduct a fishing expedition without meeting the requisite standards of necessity and proportionality to justify an infringement of the right to privacy protected under art. 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.

REVENUE LAW: Director-General of Inland Revenue - Powers and functions - Disclosure of personal data of company's customers - Inland Revenue sought disclosure of personal data of customers to enlarge tax base and increase tax collection - Whether company obligated to disclose personal data of customers - Whether Director-General of Inland Revenue empowered to obtain information from third party - Whether personal data requested fell within s. 81 of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') - Whether disclosure of personal data under s. 81 of ITA would be in breach of provisions of Personal Data Protection Act 2010

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to privacy - Inland Revenue sought disclosure of personal data of company's customers to enlarge tax base and increase tax collection - Whether disclosure permitted by law - Whether disclosure would amount to breach of personal data protection - Whether infringement of right to privacy - Federal Constitution, art. 5

APPEAL UPDATES

Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1243 affirming the High Court case of Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd v. Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn Bhd [Suit No. BKl-22NCvC-63/8-2014]
Iskandar Zulkarnain Zolkifly v. PP [2022] 1 LNS 127 affirming the High Court case of PP v. Iskandar Zulkarnain Zolkifly [2020] 1 LNS 463

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 2078	PP v. AHMAD ROHAIZAD MOHAMAD Perbuatan tertuduh melakukan kesalahan seksual terhadap dua mangsa yang berlainan pada masa dan tempat yang sama terjumlah kepada perbuatan jenayah dalam transaksi yang sama yang mewajarkan perjalanan hukuman pemenjaraan secara serentak. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 10 tahun dan 3 rotan bagi setiap pertuduhan - Hakim bicara telah memerintahkan hukuman berjalan secara serentak - Kesalahan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak - Kesalahan bawah s. 14(a) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Tertuduh merupakan bapa kandung mangsa - Perbuatan tertuduh terhadap mangsa-mangsa berlaku pada masa dan tempat yang sama - Pengakuan bersalah - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah terlalu rendah - Sama ada hukuman wajar berjalan secara serentak atau berasingan Bagi pihak pendakwaan/perayu - Mahadhir Mohd Khairudin; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Selangor Bagi pihak responden - Jayaseelan; T/n Jayaseelan & Co
[2019] 1 LNS 2118	PP lwn. NOOR AQILAH ABDUL RAHMAN Dalam menentukan tempoh pemenjaraan yang wajar dan setimpal bagi suatu kesalahan yang serius, Mahkamah perlu memastikan hukuman yang dijatuhkan memenuhi tujuan perseimbangan antara aspek pencegahan dengan aspek rehabilitasi. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 3 tahun 6 bulan dan denda sebanyak RM5,000 dan jika gagal bayar hendaklah menjalankan tambahan 6 bulan penjara serta bon kelakuan baik selama 3 tahun - Kesalahan bawah s. 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 - Pengakuan bersalah - Kesalahan yang serius dan menyebabkan kehilangan nyawa mangsa - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah memadai - Sama ada hakim bicara telah memberikan keutamaan yang lebih kepada kepentingan tertuduh daripada kepentingan awam - Sama ada pengakuan salah merupakan suatu faktor mitigasi yang utama dalam menjatuhkan hukuman Bagi pihak pendakwaan - TPR Mohd Raimi Mohd Ramli; Bahagian Pendakwaan, Jabatan Peguam Negara Bagi pihak responden - Dinesh Muthal, Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara
[2019] 1 LNS 2119	THIYAGA MURTY SUBRAMANYAN lwn. PP Pemberian notis alibi adalah mandatori dan tertuduh tidak boleh dikecualikan daripada memberikan notis tersebut sekiranya ingin membangkitkan pembelaan alibi. Justeru, keterangan alibi tertuduh atau saksi alibi tertuduh tidak akan diterima oleh Mahkamah sekiranya tiada notis alibi yang diberikan terlebih dahulu oleh tertuduh. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pengecaman - Pengecaman tertuduh - Mangsa telah mengecam penyerang semasa kejadian - Kawad cam tidak dilakukan oleh pegawai penyiasat - Tertuduh telah dicam dari kandang orang salah - Mangsa mengenali tertuduh sebelum kejadian - Sama ada pengecaman mangsa terhadap tertuduh semasa perbicaraan kes telah terjejas - Sama ada keterangan mangsa mengenai pengecaman tertuduh adalah konsisten - Sama ada tertuduh telah dicam secara positif oleh mangsa PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Alibi - Tertuduh mendakwa tidak berada di tempat kejadian - Tertuduh gagal memberikan sebarang notis alibi bawah s. 402A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada pemberian notis alibi adalah mandatori - Sama ada tertuduh boleh dikecualikan daripada memberikan notis alibi - Sama ada keterangan alibi tertuduh boleh diterima UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 326 - Perbuatan menyebabkan cedera parah dengan menggunakan senjata parang - Tertuduh menetak tangan mangsa sehingga terputus - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa perbuatannya akan menyebabkan kecederaan parah kepada mangsa - Sama ada terdapat saksi-saksi yang telah melihat dengan jelas bahawa parang telah digunakan oleh tertuduh untuk menyerang mangsa - Sama ada kes pendakwaan boleh terjejas akibat kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan parang di mahkamah Bagi pihak perayu - P Visnuvarman Pasupathi; T/n Pari & Partners Bagi pihak responden - TPR Mohd Raimi Mohd Ramli; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang
[2020] 1 LNS 828	KHOO SOON LEE REALTY SDN BHD v. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH & ANOR 1. The effective vacant possession under clause 26 of Schedule H to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 begins from the day the electricity and water supply can be tapped to individual parcels. The duty to ensure that the electricity and water supply is completed rests with the developer and not the purchaser and failing which no vacant possession is deemed to have been delivered and a penalty for late delivery may apply. In such circumstances, the late delivery is calculated from the date of scheduled delivery of vacant possession until the connection of electricity and water supply to individual parcels. 2. The calculation of the late delivery charges for failure to deliver vacant possession shall be based on the discounted price and not the contracted amount price earlier. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash award of Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims ('Tribunal') - Tribunal allowed homeowners claim against developer arising from late delivery of parcels - Tribunal allowed claims of homeowners who had agreed to a settlement with developer - Whether Tribunal had miscalculated time for late delivery - Whether claims made to Tribunal by parties who had reached settlement with developer was null and void and ought to be set aside LAND LAW: Housing developers - Late delivery - Vacant possession - Connection of water and electricity supply - Construction of term 'ready for connection' - Whether effective vacant possession begins from day electricity and water supply can be tapped in units - Whether vacant possession may only be delivered if conditions precedent under clause 26 of Schedule H to Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 have been completed with - Whether developer has obligation to ensure electricity and water supply is completed - Whether developer was liable to pay penalty for late delivery when vacant possession has not been delivered - Whether calculation for late delivery is from scheduled delivery until connection of electricity and water supply to individual parcels - Whether any calculation for late delivery penalty must be on basis of discounted price or contracted price WORDS AND PHRASES: 'ready for connections' - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, Schedule H - Clause 26(1) - Ordinary meaning - Whether means full electricity and water supply can be tapped to individual parcels For the applicant - Gun Huei Shin; M/s Gun Chambers For the respondents - Gunasegaran a/l Singaravelu; M/s John, Ang & Guna
[2020] 1 LNS 895	RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD v. ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD 1. When an arbitral tribunal has made a preliminary ruling under section 18(7) of the Arbitration Act 2005 that it lacks jurisdiction to decide a dispute without considering its merits, then the Court cannot set aside or review such preliminary ruling. The Court cannot compel an arbitrator to arbitrate a dispute when the arbitral tribunal has already made a preliminary ruling that it has no jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the parties can only resolve their dispute by way of litigation in Court. 2. If parties have agreed on a procedure to be adopted by an arbitral tribunal, the arbitral tribunal must apply the agreed procedure. In the absence of an agreed procedure adopted by parties, an arbitral tribunal becomes the master of its own procedure. ARBITRATION: Arbitral tribunal - Jurisdiction - Preliminary ruling of arbitral tribunal - Ruling on jurisdictional issue - Merits of dispute has not been considered - Power of Court to set aside or review preliminary ruling - Whether preliminary ruling of arbitral tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction to determine a dispute could be set aside and reviewed by Court - Whether Court could compel an arbitrator to arbitrate a dispute - Whether preliminary ruling made by arbitrator could be considered as an award - Whether an arbitral tribunal is master of its own procedure - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 18(7), (8) & 37 ARBITRATION: Reference of dispute - Interim relief - Discretion of Court to grant declaratory reliefs and interim injunction - Power of Court to consolidate arbitral proceedings - Whether Court could exercise its discretion to grant declaration and interim injunction - Whether specific provisions under ss. 2(1), 8, 11, 18 and 37 of Arbitration Act 2005 could prevail over general provision of s. 41 of Specific Reliefs Act 1950 and O. 15 r. 16 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant a declaration - Whether Court could order arbitral tribunal to consolidate and conduct concurrent hearing of arbitral proceedings ARBITRATION: Decision of adjudicator - Stay - Stay of preliminary ruling - Arbitral tribunal made ruling that it has no jurisdiction to determine dispute - Stay pending appeal against preliminary ruling - Whether Court could stay preliminary ruling and arbitration proceedings pending disposal of appeal For the plaintiff - Steven Seah Shu Keen & Rosamirah Insyirah Zamri; M/s P Y Hoh & Tai For the defendant - Teh Eng Lay & Tan Tong Hwa; M/s Cheah Teh & Su

CLJ 2022 Volume 4 (Part 2)

In an order of a liability judgment ordering costs and expenses of a claimant to be assessed, the claimant must establish that the loss claimed is the loss that falls within one of the scopes of the agreement. The entitlement to any development costs must be the costs which were legitimately and properly incurred for the purposes of the agreement. As the claimant failed to prove the development costs and whatever expenses that it had incurred, the issue as to the applicability of the maxim 'no party should benefit from its own breach' did not arise.
Aviation Development Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yayasan Selangor [2022] 4 CLJ 165 [FC]

CONTRACT

CONTRACT: Agreement - Joint venture agreement - Breach - Both parties found to have breached condition precedents of joint agreement - Role of court in assessing damages pursuant to judgment on liability - Whether entitlement to costs must be costs legitimately incurred for purposes of agreement - Whether maxim 'no party should benefit from its own breach' arose - Inadequacy of evidence to substantiate alleged losses - Standard of proof - Balance of probabilities

MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ

For the appellant - Ambiga Sreenevasan, James Joshua Paulraj, Lim Wei Jiet, Shireen Ann Selvaratnam & P Taneswaran; M/s Tanes, Khoo & Paulra
For the respondent - Malik Imtiaz, Fahda Nur Ahmad Kamar, Chan Wei June, Wong Ming Yen & Amanina Yusrina Ahmad Kamal; M/s Fahda Nur & Yusmadi

A landowner, despite having accepted the award of compensation by the land administrator without any objection, may still be entitled to intervene and participate in land reference proceedings, initiated by the paymaster who had filed an objection in Form N with regard to the award. The landowner as a 'person interested' under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, is entitled to safeguard its rights and interests as the outcome of the land reference proceedings will eventually have a bearing on the award.
Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 195 [FC]

LAND LAW | WORDS & PHRASES

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Reference to court - Landowner accepted award of compensation without objection - Whether entitled to intervene in land reference initiated by paymaster - Whether landowner obliged to lodge Form N with land administrator - Whether landowner 'person interested' to be added as party - Whether appearance in reference proceedings consistent with rights and interests under art. 13 of Federal Constitution - Whether landowner directly affected by objection by paymaster - Whether ought to be allowed to intervene in reference proceedings - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 2, 37(1), (3), 38(3), 43, 44(1) & 45(2) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6

WORDS & PHRASES: 'person interested' - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 2 - Landowner accepted award of compensation without objection - Whether entitled to intervene in land reference initiated by paymaster - Whether landowner 'person interested' - Whether appearance consistent with rights and interests under art. 13 of Federal Constitution - Whether landowner directly affected by objection by paymaster - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 37(1), (3), 38(3), 43, 44(1) & 45(2)

MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ

For the appellant - Kee Tong Kiak & Helena Koh Pei Yan; M/s Chee Siah Lee Kee & Partners
For the 1st respondent - Steven Thiru, David Mathew, David Ng Yew Kiat & Ananthan Moorthi; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
For the 2nd respondent - Mazuin Hashim; SLA

In the absence of the requisite elements to adduce additional evidence in the appeals, to wit, as propounded in R v. Parks that the evidence (i) was not available at trial; (ii) was relevant to the charges; and (iii) was credible and would create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant if it was given together with other evidence at the trial, the appellant's application would not be able to succeed and would be dismissed by the court.
Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v. PP [2022] 4 CLJ 231 [CA]

COURTS

COURTS: Court of Appeal - Additional evidence - Leave to adduce additional evidence under s. 61 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether necessary for justice of case - Whether requirements in R v. Parks to be satisfied cumulatively - Whether evidence available at trial - Whether relevant to charges - Whether nexus between additional evidence and charges established - Whether outcome different if evidence admitted

AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA

For the appellant - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Harvinderjit Singh, Farhan Read, Wan Aizuddin Wan Mohammed, Rahmat Hazlan, Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee, Syahirah Hanapiah, Zahria Eleena Redza, Wan Arfan Wan Othman & Alaistrair Norman (PDK); M/s Shafee & Co
For the respondent - V Sithambaram, Donald Joseph Franklin, Sulaiman Kho Kheng Fuei, Ashrof Adrin Kamarul & Manjira Vasudevan; DPPs

A fresh action is necessary to enforce a consent judgment if the compromise recorded in a consent order/judgment goes beyond the ambit of the original action.
Mega Palm Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Hun Tee Siang (Menyaman Atas Kapasitinya Sebagai Pemegang Jawatan Di Persatuan Penduduk Country Heights Damansara, Kuala Lumpur) & Ors [2022] 4 CLJ 248 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - Parties entered into consent order - Terms of consent order not fully honoured - Aggrieved party commenced fresh action to enforce consent order and/or apply for consequential orders or reliefs under consent order - Whether fresh action could only be filed when party is seeking to set aside consent order and not when enforcing it - Whether there was variation to consent order - Whether variation went beyond ambit of original action - Whether enforcement of consent order ought to be done in original suit

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - High Court - Aggrieved party commenced suit and parties entered into consent order - Terms of consent order not fully honoured - Aggrieved party commenced fresh action to enforce consent order - Whether court seized with jurisdiction to entertain fresh action - Whether enforcement of consent order ought to be done in original suit

NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA

For the appellants - Justin TY Voon & Christina Chin Tee Shan; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
For the respondents - Nicholas Ooi Boon Seng, Natalie Ooi Wan Qing & Ong Ing Siew; M/s Ooi & Ooi

Sale and transfer of the shares which were held in trust for the deceased was wrongful and ought to be returned to the estate of the deceased for distribution in accordance to the last will of the deceased.
Lee Yee Wuen v. Seek Keng Mee & Ors [2022] 4 CLJ 268 [HC]

COMPANY LAW

COMPANY LAW: Directors - Appointment - Written resolutions appointing first defendant as director not passed by majority members - Second defendant appointed by improperly constituted board of directors - Whether appointments of first and second defendants valid - Whether defendants absolved from complying with ss. 298(1) and 301(1) of Companies Act 2016 - Companies Act 2016, s. 306(4)

COMPANY LAW: Shares - Transfer - Validity of - Shares held by third defendant in trust for deceased transferred to first defendant - Shares bequeathed equally to plaintiff and first defendant but plaintiff received only part of shares - Whether transfer of shares by third defendant to first defendant wrongful - Whether trust deed illegal for being against public policy - Whether plaintiff as beneficiary has equity in estate of deceased and entitled to seek declaratory judgment - Whether right to commence action vested with executors since grant of probate issued - Sabah Land Ordinance, ss. 9(1) & 17

CELESTINA STUEL GALID J

For the plaintiff - Norbert Yapp & Sarah Tiong; M/s Norbert Yapp & Assocs
For the 1st, 2nd & 4th defendants - Edwin Tsen & Caroline Hee; M/s Tan Pang Tsen & Co

Although an insurance broker has a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in obtaining insurance in accordance with its principal's instructions, he could not be said to have breached his duty of care after duly performing his duty by submitting the authorisation letter to the hospital and to request for the medical reports as instructed. The insurance broker, who did not sit idle but whose numerous attempts to obtain the required documents from the hospital was fruitless, ought not to be held liable for any delay in the issuance of the medical reports. How soon would the medical reports be prepared is beyond the insurance broker's means and duties.
MSM Malaysia Holdings Bhd & Ors v. Transnational Insurance Brokers (M) Sdn Bhd [2022] 4 CLJ 297 [HC]

TORT

TORT: Negligence - Insurance - Insurance broker - Insurance broker refused to consider and/or pay proposed sum covered ('PSC') upon deceased's death - Allegation that insurance broker failed to advise and undertake necessary things to give effect to certificate - Whether insurance broker owed duty of care - Whether insurance broker in breach of duty of care and contractual duties - Whether insurance broker performed duty to advise on submission of medical reports pursuant to conditions for PSC - Whether insurance broker had duty to advise on alternative course of action - Whether insurance broker exercised reasonable care and skill in obtaining insurance in accordance with principal's instructions - Whether liability and damages established

JOHN LEE KIEN HOW JC

For the plaintiffs - Intan Azlina Mazlan; M/s Armiy Rais
For the defendant - Ng Sai Yeang & Tan Shey Min; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

RIGHTS OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY: AN ANALYSIS FROM THE JURISPRUDENCE VIEW ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Dharshiney Visuvaseven^[i]Rashekka Ravi^[ii]Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi^[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xlix

THE CASE OF ANTI-HOPPING LAWS IN MALAYSIA WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDIAN POSITION AND THE WAY FORWARD ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Jaganraj Ramachandran* [2022] 1 LNS(A) xlviii

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 836	Geographical Indications Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022]	Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602]	-
ACT 835	Factories and Machinery (Repeal) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 834	Malaysian Space Board Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 833	Finance Act 2021	The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 29; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 36; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 45; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 52; the Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 59; the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 64 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 66	-	-
ACT 832	Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021)	1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987)	-	Societies Act 1966 (Revised 1987) [ACT 335]

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1649	Patents (Amendment) Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 168/2022] except s 14, para 26(a), s 45 and 47, para 48(a), s 55 and para 57(b)	ACT 291
ACT A1648	Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	ACT 514
ACT A1647	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act 2022	22 February 2022 [PU(B) 120/2022] except sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27	ACT 720
ACT A1646	Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	ACT 716
ACT A1645	Copyright (Amendment) Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 167/2022] except s 4, 5, 6 and 10	ACT 332

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 113/2022	Consumer Protection (The Tribunal For Consumer Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2022	15 April 2022	18 April 2022	PU(A) 479/1999
PU(A) 112/2022	Stamp Duty (Remission) Order 2022	15 April 2022	1 January 2022 and shall continue to be in operation until 31 December 2026	ACT 378
PU(A) 111/2022	Stamp Duty (Remission) 2003 (Amendment) Order 2022	15 April 2022	1 January 2022	PU(A) 81/2003
PU(A) 110/2022	Employees Provident Fund (Amendment) Regulations 2022	14 April 2022	15 April 2022	PU(A) 409/2001
PU(A) 109/2022	Employees Provident Fund (Amendment) Rules 2022	14 April 2022	15 April 2022 to 30 June 2022	PU(A) 493/1991

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 249/2022	Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Fudeyuan Berhad)	25 April 2022	26 April 2022	ACT 778
PU(B) 248/2022	Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 20014, Section 95A Town Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur	25 April 2022		ACT 828
PU(B) 247/2022	Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12	25 April 2022	1 May 2022 to 31 May 2022	ACT 235
PU(B) 246/2022	Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12	21 April 2022	22 April 2022 to 5 May 2022	ACT 235
PU(B) 245/2022	Appointment of Lock-Up To Be A Place of Confinement	21 April 2022	22 April 2022	ACT 537

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
PU(A) 175/2019	Kaedah-Kaedah Cukai Pendapatan (Sekatan Ke Atas Kebolehpotongan Faedah) 2019	PU(A) 27/2022	1 Februari 2022	Kaedah-kaedah 5 dan 6
PU(A) 175/2019	Income Tax (Restriction on Deductibility of Interest) Rules 2019	PU(A) 27/2022	1 February 2022	Rules 5 and 6
PU(A) 34/2011	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Premium Systems in Respect of Deposit-Taking Members) Regulations 2011	PU(A) 24/2022	Assessment year of 2022	Regulations 2 - 7, 9 and 10
AKTA 291	Akta Paten 1983	PU(A) 63/2022	18 Mac 2022	Jadual Kedua
ACT 291	Patents Act 1983	PU(A) 63/2022	18 March 2022	Second Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 449/2021	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2021	PU(A) 73/2022	1 April 2022
PU(A) 159/2012	Copyright (Licensing Body) Regulations 2012	PU(A) 61/2022	18 March 2022
PU(A) 127/2017	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Order of Priority For Payments of Different Categories of Islamic Deposits, Determination and Classification of Assets and Application of Disposal Proceeds of Assets in the Winding Up of Deposit-Taking Member) Regulations 2017	PU(A) 41/2022	1 March 2022
PU(A) 182/2018	Perintah Pendaftaran Ahli Farmasi (Pindaan Jadual Pertama) 2018	PU(A) 486/2021	31 Disember 2021
PU(A) 182/2018	Registration of Pharmacists (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2018	PU(A) 486/2021	31 December 2021

To unsubscribe click here