CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
GMP KAISAR SECURITY (M) SDN BHD v. MOHAMAD AMIRUL AMIN MOHAMED AMIR [2022] 10 CLJ 669
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-44-07-2021(P)]
18 OCTOBER 2022
An employer is held vicariously liable for an intentional wrong committed by its employee, despite no fault could be attributed to the employer, in a situation where it could be established that the wrongful act of the employee is closely connected to the scope of his employment and, it is shown that the employee did not act independently 'on a frolic of his own'; and where the risk is created by the nature of the employer's business.
TORT: Vicarious liability - Principles and doctrine - Employee of security company shot randomly at public causing injuries - Whether intentional wrong by employee - Whether employer vicariously liable for damages - Scope of vicarious liability - Whether wrong committed in course of employment - Close connection test - Whether wrongful act closely connected with work assigned - Whether employer created risk by providing firearm to employee - Whether vicarious liability established
APPEAL UPDATES
- Cornerstone Development Sdn Bhd v. IRDK Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 LNS 1208 overruling the High Court case of IRDK Sdn Bhd v. Cornerstone Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [Civil Suit No. 22NCVC-398-08/2014]
- Muhammad Adib Jamaluddin lwn. PP [2022] 1 LNS 1965 mengesahkan kes PP lwn. Muhammad Adib Jamaluddin [2020] 1 LNS 2142
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2020] 1 LNS 2188
|
SAJID DILWARKHAN v. KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA & ORS
The Public Works Department, being a public body, has a statutory duty to maintain public roads in good repair and condition and they may undertake this duty either by themselves or by a contractor. The Public Works Department and the Government cannot escape liability by relying on the statutory immunity under s. 7 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and blame any independent contractors if the public road is hazardous to road users.
TORT: Negligence - Road accident - Claim against public body - Plaintiff's motorcycle went into pothole, resulting in him being thrown off and sustaining injuries - Failure to repair pothole or to put up warning signs near pothole - Existence of other similar accident involving same pothole - Whether first defendant has duty to maintain public roads in good repair and condition - Whether statutory immunity under s. 7 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 invoked - Whether defendants were liable in failing to maintain road and putting up warning signs near pothole
- For the appellant - Awtar Singh Grewal; M/s Faisyal Grewal & Co
- For the first and second respondents - Natrah Mazman, Federal Council; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
- For the third respondent - Eunice Ong; M/s Eunice Derek & Co
- For the fourth respondent - Pritam Singh; M/s SS Pritam & Associates
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 2271
|
KIT KEW LIN v. SMART SF SDN BHD
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to determine whether a winding up petition should be struck out. Where a winding up petition and affidavit have raised some questions fit to be decided by the court at the hearing of petition per se or that the petitioner had met out a prima facie case entitling him to have the petition to be heard in its entirety, then the said petition cannot be held to be obviously sustainable at the striking out application stage.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Winding up petition - Application by contributory of respondent company - Allegation that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain petition - Whether Rules of Court 2012 applicable in proceedings relating to winding up proceedings - Whether High Court has inherent jurisdiction to strike out winding up petition - Whether court could determine existence of a quasi-partnership without hearing parties in full - Whether issue of alleged financial and accounting fraud and irregularities perpetrated by petitioner ought to be dealt with in hearing of petition itself - Whether court could decide whether petition was obviously sustainable
- For the applicant/contributory - Yee Mei Ken & Mattheus Goon Kin Zhi; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the petitioner - James Khong, Edwin Lim & Kenneth Seet; M/s James Khong
- For the respondent - Teh Soo Jin; M/s Sia Boon Chee & Co
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 2059
|
GLOMAC ALLIANCE SDN BHD lwn. AFFIN BANK BERHAD
Apabila plaintif melalui pernyataan tuntutannya telah menunjukkan bahawa terdapat kausa tindakan yang munasabah terhadap defendan yang perlu diputuskan secara perbicaraan penuh, maka kelemahan atau ketiadaan kemungkinan untuk plaintif berjaya dalam tindakannya bukanlah alasan untuk membatalkan sesuatu kes di peringkat permohonan pembatalan tuntutan.
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Tindakan berasaskan penukaran syarat tanah secara salah oleh peminjam setelah tanah diserah hak kepada bank - Sama ada isu berkenaan kewujudan kausa tindakan yang munasabah perlu diputuskan secara perbicaraan penuh - Sama ada mahkamah wajar membatalkan tindakan berdasarkan keterangan afidavit semata-mata - Sama ada hak defendan untuk menukar status tanah dan seterusnya menjual kepada pihak ketiga perlu dibuktikan melalui perbicaraan penuh dengan memanggil saksi-saksi kedua-dua pihak
- Bagi pihak perayu/defendan - T/n Shahir Khubayb & Co
- Bagi pihak responden/plaintif - T/n Lawrence Hisham & Co
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 1949
|
PUSPA RANI THANABALASINGAM lwn. MAJLIS DAERAH CAMERON HIGHLANDS
Dalam permohonan semakan kehakiman terhadap suatu keputusan majlis perbandaran, pemohon perlu menunjukkan bahawa dia adalah pihak yang mendapat kemudaratan akibat daripada keputusan pihak berkuasa tempatan tersebut. Kedudukan pemohon sebagai presiden pencinta hak asasi haiwan dan aktivitinya dalam melindungi haiwan-haiwan yang terbiar semata-mata tidak mencukupi untuk melepasi ujian bendul bahawa pemohon telah mengalami kemudaratan daripada keputusan majlis perbandaran yang telah mengeluarkan notis tawaran penangkapan anjing liar kepada orang awam.
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan kebenaran - Permohonan untuk menyemak tindakan majlis perbandaran yang mengeluarkan notis tawaran kepada orang ramai untuk penangkapan anjing liar di kawasan pentadbirannya - Pemohon adalah presiden pencinta hak asasi haiwan dan memohon untuk menyemak keputusan majlis perbandaran dan memastikan anjing-anjing liar tidak dicederakan - Sama ada pemohon mendapat kemudaratan daripada keputusan responden - Sama ada tindakan pemohon mempunyai kepentingan awam - Sama ada fakta pemohon berada di luar kawasan pentadbiran majlis perbandaran secara automatik menyebabkan penolakan kebenaran semakan kehakiman - Sama ada pemohon telah melepasi ujian bendul untuk semakan kehakiman
- Bagi pihak pemohon - Rajesh Nadarajan, Sach Preetraj Singh, Arun Ganesh & Pavitra; T/n Raj & Sach
- Bagi pihak responden - Tidak Diwakili
|
|
[2021] 1 LNS 2063
|
MUHAMMAD FAKHRUL ASHYRAFF KAMIL & SATU LAGI lwn. TEA CHENG IT
1. Pengguna jalan raya yang bergerak ke kanan jalan setelah memberikan lampu isyarat untuk berbuat demikian masih bertanggungan pada kadar 50% dalam kemalangan sekiranya dia gagal memastikan adalah selamat baginya untuk berbuat sedemikian.
2. Apabila mahkamah tidak dapat menentukan pihak mana yang tidak berhati-hati dan mengakibatkan kemalangan dan lebih-lebih lagi keterangan lisan serta keterangan senyap juga tidak dapat membantu, maka mahkamah boleh memutuskan atas imbangan kebarangkalian kedua-dua pihak bertanggungan pada kadar 50% - 50% dalam kemalangan.
GANTI RUGI: Ganti rugi khas - Kos pembantu rumah - Plaintif tidak berupaya baring dengan sendiri dan hanya boleh meniarap sahaja - Sama ada plaintif memerlukan bantuan orang lain untuk aktiviti kehidupan harian - Sama ada penjaga tempatan adalah munasabah berbanding penjaga yang bersifat komersil
LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Pertembungan antara motosikal dan kereta - Pergeselan kenderaan - Kemalangan berlaku ketika kereta cuba mengelak motosikal yang ingin membelok ke kanan jalan - Pemandu kereta mengekori motosikal dalam jarak yang dekat - Motosikal telah memberikan lampu isyarat untuk bergerak ke kanan jalan tanpa memastikan keadaan selamat untuk membelok - Keterangan lisan dan keterangan senyap tidak membantu menentukan liabiliti - Sama ada mahkamah wajar memutuskan kedua-dua pihak adalah bertanggungan 50% - 50% dalam kemalangan - Sama ada isu berkaitan perlanggaran kereta dengan kenderaan lain sebelum kereta mengesel motorsikal adalah relevan untuk dipertimbangkan
- Bagi pihak perayu - Ahmad Mustaqim Zaki; T/n Saleha Tahir & Partners
- Bagi pihak responden - Aidi Haizorin Abdullah; T/n Othman Hashim & Co
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 10 (Part 4)
In exercising its supervisory power under s. 236(3) of the Companies Act 1965, the High Court must be careful not to exercise its supervisory power beyond the ambit of the provision of the section. The High Court must determine, in cases where there are conflicting opinions of joint liquidators as to methods of realisation of a wound-up company's properties, whether the liquidators' actions were in good faith and bona fide. Decisions pertaining to an application under s. 236(3) of the CA in respect of the exercise or proposed exercise of liquidator's power is appealable.
Tan Kim Chuan v. Tan Kim Tian & Ors And Another Appeal [2022] 10 CLJ 503 [FC]
COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW: Liquidators - Application for directions from court - Conflicting opinions of joint liquidators as to methods of realisation of wound-up company's properties - Whether High Court exercised its supervisory power beyond ambit of s. 236(3) of Companies Act 1965 - Whether decisions pertaining to application under s. 236(3) of Companies Act 1965 in respect of exercise or proposed exercise of liquidators' powers appealable
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
- For the appellant - David Hoh & Cassandra Choo; M/s Lim & Hoh
- For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Ashok Kandiah, David Soosay & Norvindran Sivarajah; M/s Kandiah Partnership
- For Onn Kien Hoe, Joint Liquidator For Properland Realty Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) - Low Kam Fai & Lim Zhi Jun; M/s KF Low & Co
- For Yew Fooi, Joint Liquidator For Properland Realty Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) - Owee Chia Ming & Shermaljit Singh; M/s Owee & Co
An adjudicator, while presiding in an adjudication claim, must keep within his jurisdiction in adjudicating only the subject matter referred to him pursuant to ss. 5 and 6 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012. The adjudicator is obliged to comply with the principles of natural justice, ie, the adjudicator must consider all the defences raised in the adjudication responses and should not go on a frolic of his own.
JKP Sdn Bhd v. Anas Construction Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2022] 10 CLJ 528 [CA]
CONSTRUCTION LAW
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Adjudication decision - Decision based on clause in contract not relied upon by parties in claim - Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction - Whether clause relied on must be mandatorily stated - Whether failure to state clause relied on amounted to statutory non-compliance - Whether fatal to claimant's case - Whether adjudicator breached rules of natural justice by relying on unpleaded clause of contract - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s. 15
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
- For the appellant - Mahinder Singh Dulku, Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor & Hazirah Hariz; M/s Fareed & Co
- For the respondent - Ong Yu Shin, Lim Wooi Ying & Lai Chian Loong; M/s Yu Shin Ong
A failure to file an application for interlocutory injunction promptly as required by the law, causing an inordinate delay, is a valid ground for such application to be dismissed. Also, if found that damages are adequate remedy, an interlocutory injunction ought not to be granted.
Perak Hydro Renewable Energy Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Wak Ngah Pili Bah Adim [2022] 10 CLJ 540 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Appeal against - Whether there was inordinate delay in filing application - Balance of convenience - Public interest - Whether damages adequate remedy - Whether grant of interlocutory injunction ought to be refused
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA
- For the appellants - Goik Kenzin, Ramesh Sivakumar & Narendran Letchiemanan; M/s Goik, Ramesh & Loo
- For the respondents - Vinu Kamalananthan, Conrad Lopez & Sarah Tiong; M/s Vinu & Lopez
A liquidator is, first and foremost, an officer of the court and is under a duty to act in a fair, impartial and even-handed manner. A liquidator ought to exercise diligent circumspection as to avoid dragging a company through unnecessary legal hurdles and battles in full throttle.
Eadie Voon Architect v. Stylish Houz Development Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation); Koperasi Kemas Negeri Sembilan Bhd & Ors (Interveners) [2022] 10 CLJ 562 [HC]
COMPANY LAW | LAND LAW
COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Post winding-up notice - Application by company's liquidator - Lands registered in company's name at date of winding-up petition and order but transferred to corporation by way of consent order - Whether lands company's property when transferred to corporation - Whether company's liquidator entitled to have control and custody of lands - Whether company challenged or applied to set aside consent order to transfer lands to corporation - Whether consent order valid and enforceable - Whether liquidator's application backdoor attempt to circumvent consent order - Companies Act 2016, ss. 472(1), 472(2), 475, 483, 487(3) & 511
LAND LAW: Interest in property - Beneficial interest - Company wound-up - Lands registered in company's name at date of winding-up petition and order but transferred to corporation by way of consent order - Whether lands company's property when transferred to corporation - Whether company paid purchase price in full for lands - Whether company possessed legal/beneficial interest in lands - Whether transfer of lands to corporation was disposition of company's property - Whether void - Whether company's title to lands defeasible
- For the applicant/respondent - Pamela Ephraim; M/s Ephraim & Assocs
- For the petitioner - S Sathyananthan; M/s Sathya, Lee & Co
- For the 1st intervener - Himahlini Ramalingam & Fong Ren Ming; M/s Himahlini & Loh
- For the 2nd intervener - Khairun Nisya Khudri; M/s Param Sundram
- For the 3rd intervener - Robert Low, Ahmad Shahrizal & Khong Mei-Yan; M/s Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low
- For the contributories - Dhanaraj, Shobah Veera & Joycelyn Keziah; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
- For the Supporting Creditor Perunding Kos Bersatu Sdn Bhd - R Santhi; M/s Susielan & Assocs
Perlembagaan Persekutuan jelas memperuntukkan bidang kuasa dan kuasa Mahkamah Tinggi tertakluk bawah Undang-undang Persekutuan dan bidang kuasa sivil dan jenayah Mahkamah Tinggi diperincikan selanjutnya bawah Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. Mahkamah Tinggi, oleh itu, perlu melaksanakan bidang kuasanya seperti yang termaktub dalam undang-undang bertulis dan tidak melampaui bidang kuasa yang diperuntukkan.
Nur Atika Syazwani Amran lwn. Pengarah Bahagian Perlucuthakan Harta Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik IPK Kelantan & Satu Lagi Dan Satu Kes Lagi [2022] 10 CLJ 591 [HC]
BIDANG KUASA | PROSEDUR SIVIL
BIDANG KUASA: Mahkamah - Mahkamah Tinggi - Pemohon ditangkap bawah s. 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Harta disita dan dilucut hak kepada Kerajaan - Permohonan perintah deklarasi bahawa sitaan tidak sah dan terbatal - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa membuat perintah deklarasi dalam permohonan jenayah - Sama ada perintah deklarasi termaktub bawah Akta Relief Spesifik 1950 - Sama ada dalam bidang kuasa mahkamah untuk membenarkan relief dan remedi yang dipohon - Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988, s. 25(2)
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Lanjutan masa - Permohonan - Pemohon ditangkap bawah s. 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Harta disita dan dilucut hak kepada Kerajaan - Permohonan lanjutan masa bawah A. 3 k. 2(3) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') untuk menyampaikan notis tuntutan harta yang disita - Sama ada KKM boleh diguna pakai dalam prosiding jenayah - Sama ada melibatkan prosiding di mahkamah - Sama ada dalam bidang kuasa mahkamah untuk membenarkan lanjutan masa - Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Perlucuthakan Harta) 1988, s. 25(1) & (2)
MOHAMAD ABAZAFREE MOHD ABBAS PK
- Bagi pihak pemohon - Alias Ibrahim; T/n Allias Ibrahim & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Norazlinawati Mohd Arshad; TPR
Where there are medical records pointing to the applicant suffering from a severe mental health condition and receiving treatment, it behoves the disciplinary authority to establish a Committee of Investigation ('CI') pursuant to reg. 37(5) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, to ascertain whether such a condition would justify the applicant being absent from duty especially when the applicant's employer had refused his requests to mitigate the side-effects of the medication he has to take. If a CI is not established, the disciplinary authority ought to provide its reason for not doing so.
Thirunavukarasu Angappan v. Keraj aan Malaysia & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 604 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Applicant suffered from panic disorder and major depression - Applicant charged under reg. 37 of Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 for absence without leave and justification - Applicant dismissed from employment - Whether disciplinary authority and appeal board considered medical documents on applicant's mental health - Whether disciplinary authority ought to have established Committee of Investigation ('CI') - Whether failure to establish CI meant that disciplinary procedure was unfair - Whether decision to dismiss was illegal and irrational
- For the applicant - Vigneshvar Ramarmuty & Kalai Nilaa; M/s Law Chambers of Kalai Nilaa
- For the respondents - Muhammad Fauzi Md Yusof; Perak State Legal Advisor Office
Once a limited company is wound-up, its assets and liabilities vest in the liquidator. The liquidator's sanction or consent would be required for a wound up company to proceed with any action or proceeding. When an action is not brought in the name and on behalf of the wound-up company, the action lacks locus standi unless it has been shown that the claimant is a creditor or contributory of the wound-up company.
United 1Borneo Hypermall Sdn Bhd v. See Hong Cheen [2022] 10 CLJ 624 [HC]
CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Privity - Sale and purchase agreement - Agreement executed between developer and purchaser for purchase of shop lots in mall - Mall managed by developer prior to liquidation - Liquidator of developer appointed property manager for mall - Property manager claimed for outstanding service charges and fire insurance - Whether property manager licensed under Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Managers and Property Managers Act 1981 - Whether property manager had locus standi to bring action - Whether outstanding amount ought to be paid to liquidator of developer - Whether there was privity of contract
- For the plaintiff - Roland Cheng; M/s Roland Cheng & Co
- For the defendant - Deborah Celestine Tan Chee & Winona Emmanuel; M/s Tan Arthur Borine & Partners
The housing developer is responsible for the 'preliminary management period' which, by the definition provided in s. 46 of the Strata Management Act 2013, commences from the date of delivery of vacant possession until one month after the management corporation ('MC') holds its first annual general meeting. The developer has the responsibility for the very first determination and imposition of the maintenance charges and the contribution to the sinking fund. The maintenance charges and the contribution to the sinking fund after the expiry of the 'preliminary management period' is then the responsibility of the MC. The change in the maintenance charges would only take place if there was a change in the monthly expenses and/or yearly expenses brought about by a change in any of the 26 items set out the Fifth Schedule of Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989.
Yii Sing Chiu v. Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 650 [HC]
LAND LAW
LAND LAW: Housing developer - Rates - Validity - Different rates of maintenance charges and contribution to sinking fund imposed on apartment parcels and commercial parcels - Construction of provisions of Strata Management Act 2013, Strata Titles Act 1985, Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether determination of and imposition of different rates of maintenance charges and contribution to sinking fund between apartment parcels and commercial parcels by developer valid in law
LAND LAW: Management corporation - Rates - Validity - Different rates of maintenance charges and contribution to sinking fund imposed on apartment parcels and commercial parcels - Construction of provisions of Strata Management Act 2013, Strata Titles Act 1985, Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether determination of different rates of maintenance charges and contribution to sinking fund by management corporation valid in law
AMARJEET SINGH SERJIT SINGH J
- For the appellant - Viola De Cruz; M/s VL Decruz & Co
- For the 1st & 2nd respondents - Wong Zhi Khung; M/s Michael Chow
- For the 3rd respondent - Koo Jia Hung; M/s Chee Hoe & Assocs
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
AN EXAMINATION OF THE CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITHIN THE NIGERIAN CYBERSPACE [Read excerpt]
by Tobiloba Awotoye[i] Omoniyi Bukola Akinola[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxix
[2022] 1 LNS(A) cxix
NIGERIA
AN EXAMINATION OF THE CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITHIN THE NIGERIAN CYBERSPACE
by
Tobiloba Awotoye[i]
Omoniyi Bukola Akinola[ii]
ABSTRACT
It is rather apparent that a corporation assumes a separate personality from its employees upon incorporation. This legal personality clothes the corporation with the characteristics of a natural person. One of these features is the right to sue and be sued in its corporate name. The concept and extent of liability of corporations for crimes committed by them is an ongoing debate. In Nigeria, corporations can be criminally liable for crimes committed by them, except for offences such as murder, robbery and rape. The age of technology, however, poses a new challenge in determining the liability of corporations for crimes committed by them in cyberspace. Nigeria's most recent all-encompassing legislation on cybercrimes is the Cybercrime Act 2015.[1] This law makes provision for the liability of corporations for cybercrimes. The legal regime of cybercrime in Nigeria however seems inadequate when compared with countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America. This paper analyses the extent of criminal liability of corporations for crimes committed in cyberspace. The paper also attempts a comparative study of the legal regime of cybercrime in Nigeria with that of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and South Africa.
. . .
THE ROYAL PARDON, AN ABSOLUTE PREROGATIVE POWER [Read excerpt]
by Kevin De Rozario* [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxx
[2022] 1 LNS(A) cxx
MALAYSIA
THE ROYAL PARDON, AN ABSOLUTE PREROGATIVE POWER
by
Kevin De Rozario*
INTRODUCTION
The royal pardon bestowed upon the Yang Dipertuan Agong ('YDPA') is codified in Article 42 of the Federal Constitution ('FC'). The said Article enunciates the fact that the YDPA has the power to grant pardons for all offences committed in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya. Consequently, the Sultan of each State has the power to grant pardons for all offences committed in the State.
In the United Kingdom ('UK'), such pardons are known as the 'the royal prerogative of mercy'. Malaysia, being a former colony of the same, had adopted similar principles and embedded them in the FC. Similarly, in other UK colonies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India, such practices are adopted into their legal framework.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Revoked by |
In force from |
| PU(A) 286/2022 |
Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 15) 2022 |
PU(A) 378/2022 |
15 Disember 2022 |
| PU(A) 286/2022 |
Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2022 |
PU(A) 378/2022 |
15 December 2022 |
| 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 |
|
