Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #47/2022
24 November 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

DETIK RIA SDN BHD & ANOR v. PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LTD & ANOR [2022] 10 CLJ 171
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA; HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA; MARIANA YAHYA JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCC)(A)-1100-08-2020]
22 AUGUST 2022

The legislative intent behind the enactment of s. 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 is for the approval of Bank Negara Malaysia to be obtained if the agreement entered into will lead to the acquisition or disposal of shares. The prohibition is not against the entering into of a contract. Rather, the prohibition is against the carrying out of the contract which would lead to the acquisition or disposal of more than 5% shares of a licensee without the prior approval of Bank Negara Malaysia.

CONTRACT: Conditional contract - Approval of authority - Parties entered into call/put option agreement ('CPOA') - Granting of call option in respect of shares in company - Whether prior approval of Bank Negara Malaysia required to enter into CPOA - Whether approval obtained - Whether approval merely condition to enforceability of CPOA - Whether contract tainted with illegality - Insurance Act 1996, s. 67

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Statutes - Insurance Act 1996 - Section 67 - Prohibitions and restrictions - Whether literal/purposive approach to be given in interpreting section - Whether against carrying out of transaction without obtaining Bank Negara Malaysia's approval


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“The High Court was correct in holding that the exception in s. 138(2)(c) of the ITA does not apply to the appellant. Under s. 138(2)(c) of the ITA, in order to produce or use a classified material in court, the appellant must obtain written authority of “the person to whose affairs it relates”. Here, “person” includes a company (see s. 2 of the ITA on the definition of “person”). It is imperative upon the appellant to obtain written authority or consent from the respondents before he may produce their tax documents in court. The respondents submitted that their opposition to the appellant's application is self-evident that no such written authority has been or will be given to him.”

“We also agree with the learned judge’s analysis of the case of Sharif Bungsu Sharif Zen & Anor v. PP [1999] 1 LNS 47; [1999] MLJU 645 relied on by the appellant. In this Sharif Bungsu’s case the court held in no uncertain terms that “such provision is intended for the benefit of the tax payer, probably for confidentiality reason...”.” - per Kamaludin Md Said JCA in Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow v. Raub Mining & Development Company Sdn Bhd & Anor And Other Appeals [2022] 8 CLJ 405

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2022] 1 LNS 18  

IDRIS ABD KAHAL & ORS v. LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN TANAH PERSEKUTUAN FELDA & ORS

A land application on its own creates no enforceable right by the land applicant against the Lands and Surveys Department. An approval for land application cannot be said to be subsisting and enforceable when the land applicants themselves, through their conduct, revoked such approval. Allowing a party to take possession of the land by clearing and cultivating the said land is a form of revocation by conduct.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Dispute on alienation of land - Action by several land applicants against Director of Lands and Surveys, State Government and current land owner - Allegation that land applicants had legal and proprietary interest in land - Whether land applications had been revoked by conduct - Whether action was frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court process - Whether action was obviously unsustainable - Whether striking out application ought to be allowed

  • For the plaintiffs - Kong Hong Ming; M/s Lee & Kong
  • For the 1st defendant - Ronny Cham Ngit Shin; M/s Ronny Cham & Co
  • For the 2nd & 3rd defendants - Chee Chun Yen; Jabatan Peguam Besar Negeri Sabah

[2022] 1 LNS 31 

JURUTERA DAERAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA MELAKA & ORS v. MUHAMAD SYARIMAN ABD WAHAB

A road user who fails to take evasive measures by avoiding damage on a public road when such damage is known to him is equally guilty of negligence, along with the relevant public body entrusted with the maintenance of the said road.

TORT: Negligence - Road accident - Liability - Claim against public body - Plaintiff met an accident on a road which was under maintenance - Plaintiff was riding motorcycle fast despite knowing condition of road - Whether plaintiff was aware of damage of stretch of road - Whether plaintiff had taken any evasive measures to avoid accident - Whether liability ought to be apportioned 50:50 between plaintiff and public body

  • For the appellants - Norafiah Saini; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Melaka
  • For the respondent - Khalidah Khalil; M/s A K Das & Associates

[2022] 1 LNS 37  

SIBAT SUMBANG v. MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT

Where there is an arrangement between parties to accept the presumption of service that has been made, it should not be ignored and be given its effect. Such circumstances, amongst others, include the manner of service of cause papers as stated in the written agreement between the parties.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside - Judgment in default - Judgment came to knowledge of defendant when search was done by solicitors - Whether there was inordinate delay in making application - Whether application was made within time prescribed under rules - Whether judgment in default regularly obtained - Whether defence disclosed any merits - Whether action was time-barred

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Service - Writ - Service pursuance of contract - Whether service of writ was bad in law - Whether plaintiff was required to adduce any proof of service

  • For the appellant - Paul Raja; M/s Sagau Raja & Co
  • For the respondent - Edward Usa; M/s Wan Ullok, Jugah, Chin & Company

[2022] 1 LNS 19  

HUZAIFAH ZULKIFLI lwn. PP

Seksyen 42(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 tidak menyatakan sebarang perbezaan sekiranya kesalahan bawah seksyen itu dilakukan pada masa yang tertentu. Justeru, fakta bahawa kemalangan tersebut berlaku di sebelah malam di mana tidak terdapat banyak kenderaan atau pengguna jalanraya tidak menjustifikasikan pemberian hukuman yang lebih ringan.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 6 bulan dan denda RM5,000 gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara - Kesalahan bawah s. 42(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 ('APJ') kerana membawa kenderaan secara merbahaya - Pengakuan salah - Sama ada pindaan kepada s. 42 APJ berkuatkuasa secara retrospektif - Sama ada s. 42 APJ memberi sebarang perbezaan mengenai masa kesalahan dilakukan untuk membezakan pemberian hukuman - Sama ada mahkamah bicara telah mengambil kira faktor-faktor yang tidak berlaku dalam kes - Sama ada hukuman hakim bicara wajar diketepikan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Sheikh Ikhzan Sheikh Salleh; T/n Fadzil Alimi & Associates
  • Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Nabilalif Mohd Rosli, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Melaka

[2022] 1 LNS 34  

PP lwn. SO CHIN CHONG & YANG LAIN

Penyeludupan migran merupakan satu kesalahan yang mengancam keselamatan negara dan oleh yang demikian faktor kepentingan awam haruslah dipelihara dan dilindungi. Keseriusan kesalahan tertuduh dapat dilihat daripada hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap tertuduh sekiranya disabitkan dengan kesalahan tersebut.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Mitigasi - Kesalahan yang melibatkan pengancaman keselamatan negara - Kesalahan bawah s. 26H Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 - Penyeludupan seramai 9 orang migran warganegara Indonesia - Pengakuan salah di peringkat awal perbicaraan - Kesalahan pertama - Sama ada faktor kepentingan awam harus diberi penekanan dalam menentukan hukuman - Sama ada tertuduh wajar diberi peluang setelah tertuduh menyesali dan menginsafi kesalahan yang telah dilakukan

  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Chai Ing Hien, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh pertama - Selvam Shanmugam; T/n Selvam Shanmugam & Partners
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh kedua dan tertuduh ketiga - Tiada

CLJ 2022 Volume 10 (Part 1)

The Federal Court, in order to guard its exclusive original jurisdiction from abuse, must naturally have the inherent power to set aside any leave granted, pursuant to art. 4(4) of the Federal Court, if the narrow and specific conditions of the art. 4(3) are not met. Leave can only be granted if there is jurisdiction and so, a grant of leave is not capable of becoming the basis of jurisdiction.
Wong Shee Kai v. Government Of Malaysia [2022] 10 CLJ 1 [FC]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Petition - Challenge against constitutional validity of ss. 63 and 64 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether subject matter of petition within original jurisdiction of court - Whether leave to file petition ought not to have been granted - Whether Federal Court can consider question of own jurisdiction once leave granted - Federal Constitution, art. 4(3) & (4)

 

 

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK)
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
ZABIDIN MOHAMAD DIAH FCJ

  • For the petitioner - Nahendran Navaratnam, Wong Wye Wah & Ivanpal Singh Grewal; M/s AJ Ariffin Yeo & Harpal
  • For the respondent - Suzana Atan, SFC & Kogilambigai, FC

Jumlah pampasan yang dibayar dalam pelaksanaan pengambilan tanah boleh dibayar kepada pihak berkepentingan, dalam kes ini, pemegang gadaian tanah yang diambil bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Kegagalan penyerahan notis siasatan dalam Borang E kepada pemilik berdaftar tanah yang diambil, yang menyebabkan kegagalan pemilik berdaftar hadir semasa siasatan, tidak menjadikan pengambilan tanah itu salah.
Jugajorthy Visvanathan & Satu Lagi lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah Pulau Pinang & Satu Lagi [2022] 10 CLJ 15 [CA]

| |

HAD MASA: Kausa tindakan - Tarikh terakru - Pengambilan tanah - Sama ada pengambilan tanah dibuat secara salah - Tindakan oleh pemilik tanah - Sama ada terhalang oleh had masa bawah s. 2(a) Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948 ('Akta') - Sama ada melebihi tempoh 36 bulan dari tarikh kausa tindakan terakru - Kegagalan pentadbir tanah memplid had masa - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara untuk mengetepikan pembelaan had masa - Sama ada had masa bawah s. 2(a) Akta bersifat mutlak

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pliding - Kausa tindakan - Kausa tindakan berasaskan pengambilan tanah secara salah dan fraud - Kegagalan memplid pencerobohan atau kecuaian - Sama ada mahkamah terikat untuk memutuskan kes berdasarkan kausa tindakan yang diplid - Sama ada kebergantungan pada isu pencerobohan boleh dipertimbangkan mahkamah

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Pampasan - Pertikaian berkait siasatan oleh pentadbir tanah - Dakwaan pemilik berdaftar dinafikan hak menghadiri siasatan - Sama ada penyerahan Borang E kepada pemegang gadaian dan bukan pemilik tanah menjadikan pengambilan tanah salah - Sama ada pemegang gadaian pihak berkepentingan - Sama ada pemilik tanah diprejudis atas kegagalan penyampaian Borang E - Sama ada pengambilan tanah terbatal - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, s. 11(1)

NOR BEE ARIFFIN HMR
LEE HENG CHEONG HMR
MARIANA YAHYA HMR

  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu - M Athimulan & Tinoshiny Arumugam; T/n Athimulan & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden pertama - Norazmi Mohd Narawi (SLA), Charanjit Singh Mahinder Singh & Ahmad Ghazali (SFCs); Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang, Pulau Pinang
  • Bagi pihak responden kedua - Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahim & Muhammad Hafiz Hashim (SFCs); Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang, Pulau Pinang

The jurisdiction to hear matters relating to invalidation of law under the constitutional and statutory judicial review does not lie within the Syariah courts. Judicial powers over the constitutional validity of laws could only be exercised by the civil Federal Judiciary.
Abdul Kahar Ahmad & Ors v. Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 47 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Detention under s. 23 of Syariah Criminal Procedure (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 ('SCPE') - Matters relating to invalidation of s. 23 of SCPE and challenge against detention order on grounds of illegality, irrationality, improper procedure and disproportionality - Whether fell under constitutional and statutory judicial review - Whether civil court has jurisdiction to hear matter - Whether Syariah court have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to invalidation of law under constitutional juridical review

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Validity of legislation - Detention under s. 23 of Syariah Criminal Procedure (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 ('SCPE') - Matters relating to invalidation of s. 23 of SCPE and challenge against detention order on grounds of illegality, irrationality, improper procedure and disproportionality - Whether timeless detention amounted to encroachment of fundamental liberty - Whether fundamental principle of presumption of innocence taken away - Whether imposition of bail and bond without being charged violated rights to livelihood and personal liberty - Whether order tainted with illegality, irrationality, improper procedure and disproportionality - Whether exercise of power under s. 23 of SCPE violated arts. 5 and 8 of Federal Constitution

 

 

NOORIN BADARUDDIN J

  • For the applicants - Ameerul Aizat Noor Haslan, Fahri Azzat, Iqbal Harith Liang & Muhammad Nur Aiman Toharudin (PDK); M/s Fahri & Co
  • For the 1st to 6th respondents - Nur Irmawatie Daud & Husna Abdul Halim; Assistant Legal Advisor, State of Selangor

The time frame in applying for judicial review is fundamental and goes to jurisdiction. Whether the application has merit or not, is irrelevant in a judicial review application unless there is a good reason as to why extension of time shall be given, as prescribed under O. 53 r. 3(7) of the Rules of Court 2012.
Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor v. Peguam Negara/Pendakwa Raya & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 63 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Allegation that Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor had no valid fiat to prosecute in case - Whether application made within time frame - Whether there was good reason for extension of time - Whether application abuse of process of court - Whether application had merits - Whether court had jurisdiction to hear application - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(1), (6), (7)

 

 

AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J

  • For the applicant - Jagjit Singh, Akberdin Abdul Kader, Azrul Zulkifli Stork, Ummi Kartini Abd Latif, Meor Hafiz Salehan, Ardy Suffian Akberdin & Muhammad Ameer Hafiy Amri (PDK); M/s Akberdin & Co
  • For the Attorney General's Chambers - Shamsul Bolhassan; FC & Nur Syazwani Abdul Aziz; SFC
  • For the putative 3rd respondent - in person

An absolute decree nisi obtained by a petitioner can be altered, varied or set aside by way of an application, if it can be proved that there are errors, fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In a case where a petitioner wife is not domiciled in Malaysia at the time when the divorce petition is presented, coupled with failure on her part to present full disclosure of facts, there is clearly a non-compliance of the requirements of the Legal Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, rendering the decrees obtained improper, null and void.
Khor Chin Miaw v. Frank Theodorus Van De Ven [2022] 10 CLJ 87 [HC]

FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Foreign marriage - Domicile - Petitioner wife obtained decree nisi and ex parte application to be exempted from ss. 48(1)(c) and 106 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('LRA') - Respondent husband filed application to vacate all ex parte orders - Whether there was non-compliance of LRA - Whether court has jurisdiction to issue decree nisi under s. 48 of LRA - Whether petition filed less than two years after petitioner wife came back to Malaysia - Whether decree nisi could be overturned through appeal or application - Whether there was delay in respondent husband filing application - Whether orders irregularly obtained and ought to be set aside - Whether decrees null and void

 

 

AZIZAN MD ARSHAD JC

  • For the petitioner - WB Chuah; M/s Ng Kee Way & Co
  • For the respondent - Lam TH; M/s Kevin & Co

Dalam kes-kes seksual seperti rogol, sabitan boleh dikenakan tanpa keterangan mangsa disokong, dengan syarat mahkamah telah memberi amaran pada dirinya akan bahaya pergantungan pada hanya keterangan tersebut dan setelah berpuas hati bahawa adalah selamat untuk mengetepikan keterangan sokongan. Keterangan sokongan, dalam kes-kes seksual, hanyalah amalan dan pruden sahaja; bukan satu tuntutan undang-undang.
PP lwn. Yong Choo Kiong [2022] 10 CLJ 103 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Rogol - Majikan dituduh merogol pembantu rumah - Sama ada inti pati pertuduhan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie - Sama ada keterangan mangsa harus disokong oleh lain-lain keterangan - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 375(b) & 376(1)

 

 

ABDUL WAHAB MOHAMED H

  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Jamil Aripin, Azlina Rasdi, Ainul Wardah Shahidan, Mohd Fitri Sadarudin & Liyana Zawani Mohd Radzi; TPR
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh - Rajpal Singh Mukhtiar Singh, Salim Bashir Baskaran, Phan Yan Tong & Nur Sarah; T/n Rajpal Firah & Vishnu

Section 7(8) of the Civil Law Act 1956 only allows a dependent to bring an action in their capacity as dependents if the 'circumstances' provided in the said section are satisfied. These 'circumstances' are conditions that, if proved, would confer legal standing in the claimants to bring a claim under s. 7 of the Act.
Qi Qiaoxian & Anor v. Sunway Putra Hotel Sdn Bhd [2022] 10 CLJ 153 [HC]

|

CIVIL LAW ACT: Dependency claim - Loss of support - Deceased checked into hotel as guest and drowned at swimming pool - Claimants, claiming to be parents of deceased, commenced dependency claim - Whether proven that claimants' parents of deceased - Whether locus standi established - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 7

TORT: Negligence - Damages - Claim for - Deceased checked into hotel as guest and drowned at swimming pool - Claimants, claiming to be parents of deceased, commenced claim for damages - Whether locus standi established - Whether hotel discharged duty of care to deceased - Whether hotel liable

 

AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH J

  • For the appellant - Loh Chang Woo; M/s C W Loh & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Gan Khong Aik; M/s Gan Partnership

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. DELVE INTO THE MYTH OF THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRIVILEGE AND ITS EFFECT ON ACKNOWLEDGMENT [Read excerpt]
    by Jordan Ling Kie Seng[i]Michelle Ting Ju Ying[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxii

  2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    DELVE INTO THE MYTH OF THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRIVILEGE AND ITS EFFECT ON ACKNOWLEDGMENT

    by
    Jordan Ling Kie Seng[i]
    Michelle Ting Ju Ying[ii]

    In the law of evidence, certain subject matters cannot be inquired into because they are privileged. For instance, the without prejudice privilege will protect the subject matter and render it inadmissible at law. The reason is that it is in the public interest to encourage the disputed parties to reach a compromise without judicial interference and to keep litigation at a minimum. Thus, the court is keener to enlarge the cloak under which negotiations may be undergoing without prejudice. Furthermore, while negotiating, those statements often relate to the offer of a compromise, and the rationale behind this is that if it were not privileged, those statements would constitute significant evidence because they were admissions in nature.

    In the United Kingdom ('UK'), it is well-established that communication marked 'without prejudice' between the parties seeking to compromise a settlement may be inadmissible in civil proceedings. The rationale behind this is the public interest in promoting 'out of court' negotiations. The same principle has been adopted and embodied into our jurisdiction via the s. 23 of the Evidence Act 1950 as follows:

    In civil cases, no admission is relevant if it is made, either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

    . . .

    [i] Jordan Ling Kie Seng (Pupil in Chambers of Tang & Partners Advocates (Sibu), jordanling95@gmail.com.

    [ii] Michelle Ting Ju Ying (Legal Associates of Stephen Robert & Wong Advocates (Miri), michelletingjy97@gmail.com.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
    by Nurin Husnina Hussein** [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxiii

  4. [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxiii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION IN MALAYSIA*

    by
    Nurin Husnina Hussein**

    Gordon-Smith J in his judgement[1] has intimated that bribery and corruption of officialdom are like cancer which may grow and destroy the whole body. Like Caesar's wife, officials (including judges) must be above suspicion and lack of confidence in this respect strikes at the whole foundation of good government.[2]

    It is therefore beyond doubt that corruption could permanently impair or even worse, wreck the society, predominantly a developing country like Malaysia. It is indeed a serious and infectious disease that needs to be curbed at all costs as it has always been living with us and humankind has been continuously fighting against this immoral and unethical crime.

    What is the interpretation of Bribery and Corruption?

    The primary legislation which governs bribery and corruption in Malaysia is the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 ('MACC Act') which was enacted to provide for the establishment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to make further and better provisions for the prevention of corruption and for matters necessary thereto and connected therewith.

    . . .

    *This article is reproduced, with permission by Messrs Kevin Wu & Associates.

    **Associate, Messrs Kevin Wu & Associates.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 841 Pensions Act 1951 (Revised 2022) 15 November 2022 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2022; First enacted in 1951 as Ordinance No 1 of 1951 - -
ACT 840 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -
ACT 839 Independent Police Conduct Commission Act 2022 1 July 2023 [PU(B) 574/2022] - -
ACT 838 Housewives' Social Security Act 2022 1 December 2022 [PU(B) 509/2022] - -
ACT 837 Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022 16 November 2022 [PU(B) 558/2022] Malaysian Border Security Agency Act 2017 [ACT 799] -

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) 369/2022 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Damansara-Shah Alam Elevated Expressway) Order 2022 17 November 2022 1 December 2022 ACT 306
PU(A) 368/2022 Establishment of Marine Parks Malaysia (Amendment) Order 2022 17 November 2022 1 January 2023 PU(A) 401/1994
PU(A) 367/2022 Entertainments Duty Act 1953 Entertainments Duty (Exemption) (No. 3) Order 2022 16 November 2022 1 January 2022 ACT 103
PU(A) 366/2022 Entertainments Duty Act 1953 Entertainments Duty (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2022 16 November 2022 1 January 2022 ACT 103
PU(A) 365/2022 Entertainments Duty (Exemption) Order 2022 16 November 2022 1 January 2022 ACT 103

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 578/2022 Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 50004 Mukim Kuala Lumpur 24 November 2022 25 November 2022 ACT 828
PU(B) 577/2022 Notice Under Subregulation 11(5A) - Corrigendum 23 November 2022   PU(B) 514/2022
PU(B) 576/2022 Notice of Contested Election Parliament For The State of Sabah - Corrigendum 23 November 2022   PU(B) 543/2022
PU(B) 575/2022 Appointment of Member of The Authority 23 November 2022 15 August 2022 to 14 August 2024 ACT 231
PU(B) 574/2022 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 21 November 2022 22 November 2022 ACT 839

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(B) 514/2022 Notis Di Bawah Subperaturan 11(5A) PU(B) 577/2022   Jadual
PU(B) 514/2022 Notice Under Subregulation 11(5A) PU(B) 577/2022   Schedule
PU(B) 543/2022 Notis Pilihan Raya Yang Dipertandingkan Parlimen Bagi Negeri Sabah PU(B) 576/2022   Borang 8
PU(B) 543/2022 Notice of Contested Election Parliament For the State of Sabah PU(B) 576/2022   Form 8
PU(B) 544/2022 Notis Pilihan Raya Yang Dipertandingkan Parlimen Bagi Negeri Sarawak PU(B) 573/2022   Borang 8

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

Copyright © 2022 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here