CLJ Bulletin #42/2022 (20 October 2022)

Issue #42/2022

20 October 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. PP lwn. RINI HANDAYANI [2022] 9 CLJ 436
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2022 Volume 9 (Part 2)
Articles
1. CLJ Article(s)
2. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

PP lwn. RINI HANDAYANI [2022] 9 CLJ 436
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
ABU BAKAR KATAR H
[PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN JENAYAH NO: JA-43-19-06-2022]
05 JULY 2022

Majistret terkhilaf apabila meneruskan permohonan penjamin untuk menarik diri sebagai penjamin tanpa kehadiran tertuduh secara fizikal sebagaimana diperuntukkan bawah s. 393(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ('KTJ'). Perintah Majistret, yang dibuat secara terburu-buru, bercanggah dengan peruntukan undang-undang dan mewajarkan mahkamah menggunakan kuasa bawah s. 323 KTJ untuk mengakas perintah itu.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Semakan - Jaminan - Penjamin menarik diri tanpa kehadiran tertuduh di mahkamah - Permohonan untuk menarik diri sebagai penjamin dibenarkan oleh Majistret - Sama ada perintah dikeluarkan bercanggah dengan s. 393 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Sama ada mahkamah wajar menggunakan kuasa bawah s. 323 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah untuk mengakas perintah

APPEAL UPDATES

Ling Towi Sing @ Ling Chooi Sieng & Ors v. Sino America Tours Corporation Pte Ltd [2022] 6 CLJ 836; [2022] 1 LNS 373 affirming the High Court case of Ling Towi Sing @ Ling Chooi Sieng & Ors v. Sino America Tours Corporation Pte Ltd [2019] 1 LNS 2394
Kunci Semangat Sdn Bhd v. Thomas Varkki M V Varkki & Anor [2022] 1 LNS 424 affirming the High Court case of Thomas Varkki MV Varkki & Anor v. Kunci Semangat Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 190

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 2208	RUSLAN BACIKA v. PP The criminal justice system must always protect the impuissant, downtrodden and helpless members of society, particularly children, the feeble and other penurious segments of society, by imposing a just and proper sentence against the wrongdoers. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Accused was convicted for rape and various sexual assault against minor - Accused was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment and 8 strokes of rotan in total - Accused was victim's guardian - Victim became pregnant and delivered a baby at age of 13 - Accused was above 50 years of age - Whether sentence passed followed trend of sentencing - Whether sentence imposed ought to be maintained based on public interest - Whether sentence imposed was just and proper For the accused - In person For the deputy public prosecutor - Mohd Isa Mohamad; Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia
[2020] 1 LNS 2209	PP v. LADY JOHARI IDRIS Delays in investigating and prosecuting an accused, as well as loss of job and humiliation, constitute a substantial part of punishment and should be considered as grounds in determining the appropriate sentence. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Appeal - Offence of corruption - Accused sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of RM20,000 in default 12 months imprisonment for offence of soliciting gratification and three years imprisonment and a fine of RM10,000.00 in default six months imprisonment - Prosecution took many years to charge accused - Delay in investigation - Whether delay in prosecuting accused in itself a form of punishment - Whether loss of job and humiliation suffered by accused are by themselves a substantial part of punishment - Whether sentence of imprisonment was excessive For the deputy public prosecutor - Abdul Rashid Sulaiman, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Bahagian Perundangan & Pendakwaan Pejabat SPRM Kuala Lumpur For the appellant - Mohd Shahrullah Khan Nawab; M/s Nurul Hafidzah & Associates
[2020] 1 LNS 2295	KUMAR RAJAGOPAL v. SITI NOR MARSITA JAHRON & ANOR A limitation period could be enlarged in the event an issue of infancy or disability is found in the facts, or a claim is acknowledged. An offer of settlement made by a defendant is tantamount to an acknowledgement of a claim as envisaged in s. 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953. Hence, a fresh action had accrued as of the time the offer was made. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Dependency claim - Claim filed three years after accident - Existence of settlement offer by defendant which was later retracted - Whether action was barred by limitation under s. 7(5) of Civil Law Act 1956 - Whether limitation period was enlarged - Whether claim was obviously unsustainable CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - Procedural non-compliance - Appellant relied on wrong provision in O. 55 r. 3(4) of Rules of Court 2012 - Delay in service of hardcopy of notice of appeal - Duplicate copy was sent within time via email - Whether a mere delay of few days in receipt of hardcopy of notice of appeal had caused prejudice to respondent LIMITATION: Accrual of cause of action - Fresh accrual of cause of action - Acknowledgement of claim - Dependency claim - Defendant made offer to plaintiff's claim despite claim being made more than three years as required under s. 7(5) of Civil Law Act 1956 - Whether 3 years limitation period under s. 7(5) of Civil Law Act 1956 is absolute - Whether limitation could be enlarged - Whether fresh accrual of action triggered from date when offer for settlement of claim was made - Limitation Act 1953, s. 26(2) For the plaintiff/appellant - Saravanan Subramaniam; M/s Saravanan & Nasriq For the defendants/respondents - Ratnadevi; M/s SG Lingam & Co
[2020] 1 LNS 535	PP lwn. MOHD SHUKRI ABDULLAH Bagi kesalahan bawah s. 26J Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 ('Akta 2007'), mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara untuk menentukan tempoh pemenjaraan bergantung kepada fakta sesuatu kes. Dalam menentukan tempoh pemenjaraan, mahkamah tidak terikat untuk mengikuti trend penghukuman secara bulat-bulat. Menurut s. 36(2) Akta 2007, mahkamah juga mempunyai budi bicara untuk memerintahkan perlucuthakan atau memulangkan kenderaan yang terlibat dalam kesalahan bawah s. 26J Akta 2007 kepada pemilik berdaftar. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Rayuan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Tertuduh dihukum penjara dua tahun dari tarikh tangkap bagi kesalahan bawah s. 26J Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 - Pengakuan bersalah di peringkat awal kes - Pesalah pertama - Sama ada pengakuan bersalah merupakan mitigasi peringanan - Sama ada trend penghukuman mengikat mahkamah untuk mengikutinya bulat-bulat - Sama ada latar belakang tertuduh dan kehilangan faedah pencen tertuduh sebagai seorang pesara tentera wajar dipertimbangkan PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Perlucuthakan - Penyitaan harta - Kenderaan - Tertuduh disabitkan bersalah atas kesalahan bawah s. 26J Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 ('Akta 2007') - Kenderaan digunakan untuk menyeledup migran - Sama ada kenderaan wajar dilucuthak kepada kerajaan Malaysia bawah s. 36 Akta 2007 - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara untuk memulangkan kenderaan kepada pemilik berdaftar Bagi pihak tertuduh - Firdaus Mohd Yusoff; T/n Alias Ibrahim & Co Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Farah Aqilah Ahmad Fuad; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor
[2020] 1 LNS 892	AU SEE YUEN & YANG LAIN lwn. PENGARAH BAHAGIAN PERLUCUTANHAKAN HARTA JABATAN SIASATAN JENAYAH NARKOTIK IPK SELANGOR & SATU LAGI Tujuan utama notis penyitaan diberikan untuk penyitaan bawah s. 32(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988 adalah untuk memastikan bahawa pihak yang terlibat mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan perkara yang dihadapinya. Justeru, penyerahan notis penyitaan secara kendiri adalah penting bagi memastikan orang yang terlibat memperoleh maklumat berkenaan penyitaan tersebut dan sebarang kelewatan pemberian notis penyitaan boleh memprejudiskan hak orang yang terlibat. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Perlucuthakan - Penyitaan harta - Kesahihan perlucuthakan - Pemohon mempertikaikan perlucuthakan responden bawah s. 32(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988 - Pemohon tidak dimaklumkan berkenaan status perlucuthakan dan pemohon tidak dapat membuat rayuan lebih awal - Sama ada kelewatan memberi notis perlucuthakan kepada pemohon merupakan suatu pelanggaran undang-undang dan telah memprejudiskan pemohon - Sama ada kelewatan penyerahan notis telah menidakkan hak pemohon untuk mendapat makluman dalam tempoh masa yang secukupnya - Sama ada isu penyerahan notis penyitaan relevan walaupun penyitaan dibuat di hadapan pemohon Bagi pihak pemohon - N Sivananthan & Low Huey Theng; T/n Sivananthan Bagi pihak responden – Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Noor Haslinda Che Seman

CLJ 2022 Volume 9 (Part 2)

A liquidator is empowered to investigate and ascertain whether the acts of the directors of a company are correct and proper and this includes verification processes and calling for historical documentation.
Kemacahaya Development Sdn Bhd v. Pywatec (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2022] 9 CLJ 161 [CA]

COMPANY LAW

COMPANY LAW: Liquidator - Powers - Refusal of liquidator to give endorsement and consent to proposed sale of properties - Power of liquidator to investigate and ascertain whether acts of directors correct and proper - Verification process and calls for historical documentation - Whether liquidator's decision unreasonable, absurd and erroneous - Companies Act 1965, s. 279

HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
SEE MEE CHUN JCA

For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Ong Teng Kek, Gabriel Daniel, Austen Emmanuel Pereira & Melissa Chan Shyuk Wern; M/s Paul Ong & Assocs
For the 2nd respondent - Benjamin Dawson, Rajes Raghavji Patel, Eileen Othman, Roeshan Gomez & Kresha Paskaren; M/s Rajes Hisham Rahim & Gopal

The Guidelines of the Accreditation of Malaysian Undergraduate Medical Educational Programmes ('Accreditation Guidelines') despite having no force of law, was nevertheless intended to be binding on the parties in this case, the provider of a medical programme and the Malaysian Medical Council. The Accreditation Guidelines do not permit an arbitrary exercise when the provider of medical programme is required to adhere strictly to the Accreditation Guidelines.
Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor v. Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd [2022] 9 CLJ 177 [CA]

TORT

TORT: Negligence - Statutory duty - Breach of - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institutions - Panel appointed Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC') to evaluate programmes - Panel conducted two surveys and approved three offshore programmes - Offshore programmes converted into local medical degree programmes - Whether panel adhered to accreditation guidelines - Whether MMC owed duty of care to claimant - Whether there was breach of duty - Whether damages proven

TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institutions - Panel appointed Malaysian Medical Council to evaluate programmes - Panel conducted two surveys and approved three offshore programmes - Whether discretion properly exercised - Whether there was misfeasance in public office

TORT: Liability - Vicarious liability - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institutions - Panel appointed Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC') to evaluate programmes - Panel conducted two surveys and approved three offshore programmes - Offshore programmes converted into local medical degree programmes - Whether there was conversion or absorption - Whether medical degree programmes terminated - Whether discretion properly exercised - Whether MMC vicariously liable for acts of panel member - Whether panel member agent of MMC

NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA JCA

For the appellants - Mohd Hafarizam Harun, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Abu Bakar Isa Ramat, Nor Emelia Mohd Iszeham & Sareekha Roslyna Mohd Rosli; M/s Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak
For the respondents - Steven Thiru, Gerard Lourdesamy, Gregory Das, Jeremiah Rai, Leah Samuel & Chinnapalani Devi Arumugam; M/s Gerard Samuel & Assoc

Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969 bertujuan melindungi pekerja-pekerja dan menyediakan faedah-faedah yang termasuk dalam skim insurans mereka. Akta ini adalah undang-undang sosial yang harus ditafsir secara liberal dan, dalam kebanyakan kes, berpihak pada benefisiari, dengan syarat tiada pencabulan peruntukan-peruntukannya.
Ayanaro Siwasamy lwn. Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial [2022] 9 CLJ 213 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH

UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH: Keselamatan sosial - Faedah hilang upaya sementara - Rayuan terhadap keputusan Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial - Pekerja menemui kemalangan - Sama ada kemalangan berlaku semasa pekerja dalam perjalanan kerja dari tempat kediaman - Sama ada kemalangan terjumlah dalam rangkuman s. 24(1)(a) Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja 1969 - Sama ada pekerja layak menuntut faedah hilang upaya sementara

AZIZAN MD ARSHAD PK

Bagi pihak perayu - Tharumarajah Thiagarajan; T/n T Tharuma & Assoc
Bagi pihak responden - Diba Natalia Ishak & Muhammad Suhaib Ibrahim; T/n Skrine

The sale and purchase agreement in this case was a special social-legislation contract governed by the Sabah Statutes with every intention to protect the interests of the purchasers from huge developer companies. The financier's deed of assignment, which was derived from the SPA, could not override the terms of a master agreement and statutory contract by adding on more onerous terms onto it. The purchaser of the property had the locus standi to institute the action against the housing developer for its failure to deliver vacant possession by the due date; the Sessions Courts did not commit any error of law or fact in finding that this was a plain and obvious case for summary judgment.
Bina Puri Properties Sdn Bhd v. Oliver Goh Thiam Sie [2022] 9 CLJ 225 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | CONTRACT | LAND LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Whether plain and obvious case for summary judgment - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement ('SPA') - Breach - Failure to deliver vacant possession by due date - Claim for liquidated damages - Whether contract statutory in nature - Whether strict adherence necessary - Whether deed of assignment ('DOA') provide precondition in sale and purchase agreement which must be complied with - Whether clauses in DOA incompatible and directly opposed to SPAs - Whether DOA could override terms of master agreement - Whether plaintiff had locus standi to carry out action

LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Failure to deliver by due date - Claim for liquidated damages - Breach of sale and purchase agreement - Whether contract statutory in nature - Whether strict adherence necessary - Whether deed of assignment ('DOA') provide precondition in sale and purchase agreement which must be complied with - Whether clauses in DOA incompatible and directly opposed to SPAs - Whether DOA could override terms of master agreement - Whether plaintiff had locus standi to carry out action

AMELATI PARNELL JC

For the appellant/defendant - Chin Kok Seun; M/s LV Partners
For the respondent/plaintiff - Andrew Chang Vun Kee; M/s Wong & Co

The taxpayer is entitled to resort to the remedy of judicial review in exceptional circumstances ie, when there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or a blatant failure to perform some statutory duty or where there is a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. In the instant matter, there were exceptional circumstances as the Director General of Inland Revenue had not provided any or proper reasons to substantiate the substituted market value of the land in question and there was also the failure to specify the appropriate provisions under which he was exercising his powers.
Speed Modulation Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2022] 9 CLJ 239 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | REVENUE LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Leave - Application for - Application for order of certiorari to quash decision of Director General of Inland Revenue - Decision on notice of assessment and notices of additional assessment for real property gains tax - Whether decision arose from clear lack of jurisdiction and error of law - Whether decision made in serious breach of natural justice - Whether in breach of duty to give reasons - Whether applicant accorded with right to be heard at any time before decision made - Whether there were exceptional circumstances

REVENUE LAW: Real property gains tax - Assessment - Revenue Department ('Revenue') demanded RPGT almost 100% higher than valuation by applicant's independent valuers - Revenue did not provide copy of valuation report to applicant - Whether Revenue had duty to give reasons as to decision - Whether Revenue breached duty

NOORIN BADARUDDIN J

For the applicant - Nitin Nadkani, Jason Tan Jia Xian & Chris Toh Pei Rao; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
For Attorney General Chambers (AGC) - Ahmad Faiz Razali; FC & Mohd Izhanudin Alias; SFC

Kuasa menentukan kesemua pendakwaan jenayah di mahkamah adalah kuasa mutlak Pendakwa Raya yang diperuntukkan bawah per. 145 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan s. 376 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, yang lazimnya dikemukakan berdasarkan fakta kes dan keterangan sedia ada. Mahkamah tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya memilih untuk meminda pertuduhan dan mencampuri hak Pendakwa Raya.
Tan Wai Meng lwn. PP [2022] 9 CLJ 260 [HC]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pertuduhan - Pindaan pertuduhan - Pertuduhan asal bawah s. 279 Kanun Keseksaan - Majistret meminda pertuduhan selepas tertuduh mengaku bersalah - Sama ada kuasa mutlak pertuduhan pada Pendakwa Raya - Sama ada Majistret mencampuri hak Pendakwa Raya apabila meminda pertuduhan - Sama ada pertuduhan asal perlu diterima walaupun hukuman lebih ringan daripada pertuduhan pindaan - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss. 158, 376(1) - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 145

ABU BAKAR KATAR J

Bagi pihak pemohon - Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin; T/n Azwan Aiman Forsberg & Co
Bagi pihak responden - Faizal Noor Hadi; TPR, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor

Special Report
The Competition Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal by Persatuan Insurans Am Malaysia (PIAM) and its 22 members against the Malaysia Competition Commission, deeming an agreement on the application of trade discounts on automotive parts prices and hourly labour rates for motor vehicle repairs by workshops under the PIAM Approved Repairers Scheme as a breach of the Competition Act 2010 ('Act'). The PIAM members' circular did not infringe s. 4(1) of the Act and therefore, there was no finding of liability on the part of the insurers and PIAM under the anti-competition law.
Persatuan Insurans Am Malaysia (PIAM) & Ors v. Competition Commission [2022] 9 CLJ 268 [CC]

COMPETITION LAW

COMPETITION LAW: Anti-competition practices - Anti-competition agreement - Discontention of insurance companies of trade discount on spare parts prices to repair damaged motor vehicle - Whether there was agreement that infringed s. 4(1) of Competition Act 2010 - Whether 'horizontal agreement' - Whether locus standi established - Whether deeming provision under s. 4(2)(b) applicable - Whether Bank Negara Malaysia had legislative power to issue directive(s) under s. 22(3) of Insurance Act 1996 - Whether letter issued was directive to fix parts trade discounts and labour rates - Whether Malaysia Competition Commission in breach of natural justice - Whether Malaysia Competition Commission acted ultra vires - Competition Act 2010, s. 51

CHOO KAH SING J (CHAIRMAN)
ASMABI MOHAMAD JCA (COMMS)
VICTOR WEE ENG LYE (COMMS)

For Bank Negara Malaysia - Cyrus Das, Heng Jia & Nicole Leong; M/s Tay & Partners
For Persatuan Insurans Am Malaysia (PIAM) - Khoo Guan Huat & Shanthi Kandiah; M/s Shanthi Kandiah Chambers
For CHUBB Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad - Nahendran Navaratnam; M/s Sreenevasan Young
For Great Eastern General Insurance (M) Berhad - Sudharsanan Thillainathan & Jocelyn Xie Hui; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
For Tokio Marine Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad, Lonpac Insurance Bhd, Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad & Tune Insurance Malaysia Berhad - Tunku Farik Tunku Ismail, Tan Sixin & Sarah Low; M/s Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong
For Prudential Assurance Malaysia Berhad & Progressive Insurance Bhd - Yon See Ting & Nereen Kaur Veriah; M/s Christopher & Lee Ong
For MPI Generali Insurance Berhad, AmGeneral Insurance Berhad, Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) Berhad, Liberty Insurance Berhad & Rhb Insurance Berhad - Anand Raj, Abhilaash Subramaniam, Jeevitha T Thurai Rathnam & Choo Kelly; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
For AIA Bhd, AIG Malaysia Insurance Berhad, Axa Affin General Insurance Berhad & Zurich General Insurance Malaysia Berhad - Khoo Guan Huat, Tan Shi Wen & Melissa Long; M/s Skrine
For MSIG Insurance (M) Berhad, Etiqa General Insurance Berhad, The Pacific Insurance Berhad & Qbe Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad - Mark La Brooy & Yenne Chow; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
For Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd - Shanti Mogan & Lilien Wong; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
For Competition Commission - Gopal Sri Ram, Lim Chee Wee, Kwan Will Sen, Muayyad Khairulmaini & Wong Chee Chien; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership

ARTICLES

CLJ Article(s)

Review Of The Case Of Amgeneral Insurance Bhd v. Sa'amran Atan & Ors And Other Appeals ^{[Read excerpt]}
by S SANTHANA DASS* [2022] 9 CLJ(A) i

LNS Article(s)

DEMYSTIFYING THE MYTH OF INTERESSE TERMINI AND ITS EFFECT ON SUCCESSIVE LEGAL MORTGAGES IN NIGERIA ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Mevayen Ewomazino Jemialu* [2022] 1 LNS(A) ci

COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE PROSPECTS OF E-FILING OF PROCESSES AND VIRTUAL COURT HEARINGS IN CIVIL CASES IN NIGERIA ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Arthur Elvis Chukwu Esq.* [2022] 1 LNS(A) cii

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 840	Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	-	-
ACT 839	Independent Police Conduct Commission Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	-	-
ACT 838	Housewives' Social Security Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	-	-
ACT 837	Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	-	-
ACT 836	Geographical Indications Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022]	Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602]	-

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1677	Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	ACT 438
ACT A1676	Goods Vehicle Levy (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	ACT 294
ACT A1675	Windfall Profit Levy (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	ACT 592
ACT A1674	Departure Levy (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	ACT 813
ACT A1673	Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet Inforce	ACT 791

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 344/2022	Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Kajang Traffic Dispersal Ring Road) (Amendment) Order 2022	19 October 2022	20 October 2022	PU(A) 16/2005
PU(A) 343/2022	Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) Guthrie Corridor Expressway) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2022	19 October 2022	20 October 2022	PU(A) 298/2005
PU(A) 342/2022	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (Revocation) Order 2022	19 October 2022	21 October 2022	ACT 333
PU(A) 341/2022	Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Kemuning-Shah Alam Highway) (Amendment) Order 2022	19 October 2022	20 October 2022	PU(A) 163/2010
PU(A) 340/2022	Labuan Trusts (Amendment) Regulations 2022	19 October 2022	1 January 2023	PU(A) 415/2010

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 492/2022	Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12	17 October 2022	1 November 2022 to 30 November 2022	ACT 235
PU(B) 491/2022	Returns and Statements of Election Expenses - Johore	17 October 2022	18 October 2022	ACT 5
PU(B) 490/2022	Directions of The Minister Under Paragraph 13(2)(d)	14 October 2022	15 October 2022	ACT 743
PU(B) 489/2022	Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Member of The Board	14 October 2022	Appointment - 17 June 2022 to 19 December 2022; Revocation - 17 June 2022	ACT 105
PU(B) 488/2022	Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Director General of The Board	14 October 2022	17 June 2022	ACT 105

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
ACT 366	Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989)	PU(A) 309/2022	6 October 2022	First Schedule
ACT 461	Offenders Compulsory Attendance Act 1954 (Revised 1991)	ACT A1660	30 September 2022 [PU(B) 461/2022]	Sections 2,3, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6A and 8
ACT 593	Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999)	ACT A1662	1 October 2022 [PU(B) 452/2022]	Section 307
ACT 91	Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972)	ACT A1661	1 October 2022 [PU(B) 451/2022]	Sections 28, 51, 52, 52A, 53, 55 and 68
PU(A) 163/2022	Perintah Duti Eksais 2022	PU(A) 287/2022	1 November 2022	Jadual

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 224/2022	Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penandaan Harga Barangan Harga Terkawal) (No. 7) 2022	PU(A) 327/2022	12 Oktober 2022
PU(A) 224/2022	Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 7) Order 2022	PU(A) 327/2022	12 October 2022
PU(A) 282/2022	Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 10) 2022	PU(A) 319/2022	8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022
PU(A) 282/2022	Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 10) Order 2022	PU(A) 319/2022	8 October 2022 to 7 November 2022
PU(A) 256/2022	Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 9) 2022	PU(A) 319/2022	8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022

To unsubscribe click here