10 February 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
TENAGA NASIONAL BHD v. CHEW THAI KAY & ANOR  2 CLJ 333
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-28-07-2020 (A)]
04 JANUARY 2022
Abstract - The statutory power of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) to disconnect electricity to a customer's premises pursuant to the discovery of meter tampering, which it may resort to under s. 38(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA'), abates once it remedies and rectifies the tampering or the impugned meter. TNB cannot thereafter disconnect supply on the ground that an offence under s. 37(1) of ESA had been committed, as its power to disconnect can only remain extant and exercisable in the presence of a continuing offence, and not otherwise. Whether it be the old or the amended s. 38(1) of ESA, the section does not allow for future disconnection of electricity in circumstances where the offence under s. 37(1) was in the past and was no longer being continued by the customer. To that extent, any loss of revenue suffered by TNB in the circumstance may only be recovered by way of a civil action under s. 38(5) of ESA.
UTILITIES: Electric supply - Disconnection - Discovery of meter tampering at consumer's premises - Tampered meter rectified and replaced - Electricity supplier sent notice of disconnection - Whether electricity supplier could lawfully invoke amended s. 38(1) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 to disconnect electricity - Whether there must be continuing offence to invoke power of disconnection - Whether there was subsisting offence under s. 37(1) authorising disconnection - Balance of competing interest within scheme of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Whether prerequisite for electricity supplier to disconnect supply before issuing statutory written statement to consumer
Dato' Mohamad Yusof A Bakar & Anor v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur  1 LNS 1494 (CA) overruling the High Court case Dato Mohamad Yusof A Bakar & Anor v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur  1 LNS 2123
Kembang Serantau Sdn Bhd v. YBK Usahasama Sdn Bhd  1 LNS 1515 (CA) overruling in part the High Court case Kembang Serantau Sdn Bhd v. YBK Usahasama Sdn Bhd  1 LNS 206
Legal Network Series
MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD v. WAZAM VENTURES SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE
1. The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 does not grant a respondent in adjudication the right to file a rejoinder. The respondent’s filing of a rejoinder may result in an adjudicator failing to deliver an adjudication decision within the prescribed timeline. When an adjudicator refuses an application to file a rejoinder, this does not in itself amounts to a breach of the second rule of natural justice.
2. An adjudicator complies with s. 12(4) of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 if he provides at least one reason, however brief, for the adjudication decision and the Court cannot review the legality, correctness and adequacy of the reason.
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Adjudicator allowed subcontractor's claim against main contractor for work done - Adjudicator dismissed request by respondent in adjudication proceedings to file rejoinder - Whether respondent in adjudication proceeding has right to file rejoinder - Whether adjudicator had committed error in law when dismissing request for rejoinder - Whether adjudicator had given reasons for adjudication decision - Whether adjudicator had complied with requirements under s. 12(4) of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') - Whether adjudicator had breached second rule of natural justice - Whether errors and omissions of adjudicator could be remedied in arbitration pursuant to s. 13(c) of CIPAA
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Stay - Applicant failed to apply for stay of adjudication decision under s. 16(1)(b) of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 in originating summons - Interest of justice - Whether Court could decide stay application in interest of justice - Whether stay could be granted when applicant failed to satisfy that adjudicator has made a clear error in making adjudication decision - Whether respondent would be deprived of cash flow if stay granted
CHASWOOD RESOURCES SDN BHD v. COUTURE HOMES SDN BHD
In garnishee proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the garnishee to prove that there is no debt due and owing to the defendant.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Garnishee order - Setting aside - Defendant was a subsidiary of garnishee - Defendant's audited accounts showed garnishee owed a sum of money to defendant - Garnishee alleged defendant had waived debt - Defendant's audited accounts was prepared and lodged with Companies Commission after filing of plaintiff's application for order nisi - Whether garnishee had discharged burden of proof to show that there is no debt due and owing to defendant
ISKANDAR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT v. SJIC BINA SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL
The entire Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') has prospective application only and therefore, it does not apply to construction contracts made before CIPAA came into force. As such, the adjudication decision on construction contracts made prior to CIPAA's implementation must be set aside.
CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Application pursuant to s. 15 of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') - Improperly procured adjudication decision - Construction contract made before CIPAA came into force - Whether CIPAA applied prospectively or retrospectively - Whether CIPAA applicable to construction contract made before CIPAA came into force - Whether adjudication decision ought to be set aside
MUHAMMAD FAIZAL SUDIN lwn. PP
Intipati pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan bagi kesalahan bawah s. 409 Kanun Keseksaan adalah berkenaan penyalahgunaan amanah oleh tertuduh untuk kegunaan sendiri dan adalah tidak perlu bagi pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan wang yang menjadi persoalan dalam pertuduhan telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaun tertuduh.
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Pecah Amanah Jenayah - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 409 - Pengurus kilang dengan curang menyalahgunakan wang yang telah diamanahkan kepadanya - Pembayaran berlebihan dibuat kepada pembekal bahan mentah berbanding dengan bahan mentah yang sebenarnya diterima - Sama ada tertuduh telah tidak amanah dalam menjalankan arahan yang diamanahkan kepadanya - Sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk pembuktian mengenai wang yang diterima oleh tertuduh dalam akaunnya bagi kesalahan bawah s. 409 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada tertuduh telah gagal mengikuti prosedur pembayaran yang biasa diamalkan
REMCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD lwn. PERSATUAN PENGANUT DEWA SRI MEENATCHI SOCKALINGESWARAR
Pihak yang mendakwa telah diberi kebenaran oleh pemilik asal untuk terus menduduki tanah harus mengemukakan bukti-bukti nyata yang menunjukkan kebenaran tersebut telah diberikan oleh pemilik asal. Ketiadaan tindakan oleh kerajaan negeri atau agensi di bawahnya tidak bermakna kebenaran telah diberikan secara tersirat kepada suatu pihak untuk memasuki dan menduduki tanah tersebut.
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pencerobohan - Permohonan untuk milikan kosong - Permohonan oleh pemilik berdaftar dan benefisiari - Pembinaan struktur kuil yang mencerobohi tanah yang dibeli plaintif - Pihak kuil mendakwa kerajaan negeri sebagai tuan punya asal hartanah telah memberikan persetujuan kepada pihak kuil untuk menduduki tanah sebelum plaintif memilikinya - Sama ada terdapat keterangan nyata bahawa pemilik semasa dan pemilik terdahulu telah memberi kebenaran untuk defendan memasuki dan menduduki tanah - Sama ada defendan telah menceroboh tanah - Sama ada hak plaintif untuk milikan tanah adalah serta merta selepas plaintif didaftarkan sebagai pemilik hartanah bawah s. 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Prosiding terus pemilikan tanah - Permohonan untuk - Milikan kosong - Pembinaan struktur kuil yang mencerobohi tanah yang dibeli plaintif - Kegagalan mengemukakan keterangan nyata yang menunjukkan kebenaran telah diberikan oleh pemilik asal dan pemilik semasa untuk defendan terus menduduki tanah - Sama ada defendan adalah penceroboh yang menduduki tanah milik plaintif - Sama ada terdapat isu-isu untuk dibicarakan - Sama ada plaintif sebagai pemilik berdaftar berhak untuk pemilikan serta-merta - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 89
CLJ 2022 Volume 2 (Part 2)
In a medical negligence action, where the injuries caused (herein serious brain injury resulting in plaintiff being in vegetative state) has been proved and the hospital has been found solely liable, damages should be awarded for loss of earnings, special damages, value of care and for pain and suffering, and for loss of amenities of life et cetera; it should be noted, however, that in awarding such damages, once a multiplier therefor has been decided, there is no more logic to make a further deduction on the quantum awarded.
Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd v. Fareed Reezal Arund & Another Appeal  2 CLJ 173 [CA]
TORT: Damages - Medical negligence - Claim for - Plaintiff suffered serious brain injury resulting in him being in persistent vegetative state - Issue of quantum - Life expectancy - Loss of earnings - Pain and suffering - Value of life
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
SEE MEE CHUN JCA
- For the appellant - Felix Raj & Ahmad Aizek Busu; M/s Felix Raj Chambers
- For the respondent - MS Dhillon, KB Karthi & Jeremy Balang; M/s PS Ranjan & Co
- For the appellant - MS Dhillon, KB Karthi & Jeremy Balang; M/s PS Ranjan & Co
- For the respondent - Felix Raj & Ahmad Aizek Busu; M/s Felix Raj Chambers
A defendant in a defamation suit, who has executed a consent judgment to withdraw the impugned defamatory statement and to refrain from repeating the same but went on nonetheless to thereafter repeat and publish the statement, has clearly committed an act of contempt and is susceptible to be slapped with a contempt order; likewise, his solicitor too, for advising, aiding or abetting him to repeat the contemptuous factual matters, could be equally guilty of contempt, and be liable to be censored accordingly.
Saraswathy Kandasami v. Datuk Saravanan Murugan & Another Appeal  2 CLJ 202 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal order - Appeal against - Appeal against committal order made by High Court - Consent judgment entered between parties - Appellants proceeded to hold press conference to repeat and publish impugned statements referred in defamation suit - Whether breach of undertaking in consent judgment amounted to contempt of court - Whether contempt proceedings defective and bad in law - Whether there was misinterpretation of undertaking in consent judgment - Whether appellants committed act of contempt of court by refusing to comply with undertaking in consent judgment
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - Consent judgment entered between parties - Appellants proceeded to hold press conference to repeat and publish impugned statements referred in defamation suit - Whether breach of undertaking in consent judgment amounted to contempt of court - Whether contempt proceedings defective and bad in law - Whether there was misinterpretation of undertaking in consent judgment - Whether appellants committed act of contempt of court by refusing to comply with undertaking in consent judgment
LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Duty to client - Failure to advise clients not to breach undertaking in consent judgment - Whether solicitor failed in professional duty as officer of court - Whether solicitor committed act of contempt of court
LAU BEE LAN JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
- For the appellant - Saraswathy Kandasami; M/s S Kandasami & Co
- For the respondent - Premshangar Venugopal & Muralidharan Balan Pillai; M/s Lewis & Co
- For the appellant - M Manoharan & P Thavamalar; M/s Sathiya Devi & Co
- For the respondent - Premshangar Venugopal & Muralidharan Balan Pillai; M/s Lewis & Co
An ex parte injunction could not be extended beyond 21 days. The execution of an Anton Piller order, after its expiry, is illegal and an invalid execution, apart from being an abuse of court process. Such non-compliance could not be corrected by subsequent compliance.
Ageson Enterprise Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Esa Pile Sdn Bhd) v. LKD Trading Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)  2 CLJ 226 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Anton Piller order - Expiry - Anton Piller order obtained to gain access to premise - Anton Piller order executed after expiry - Whether execution legal and valid - Whether principles of law governing Anton Piller injunction satisfied - Whether there was abuse of court process - Whether occasioned miscarriage of justice - Whether Anton Piller order ought to be complied with - Rules of Court 2012, O. 29 r. 1(2B)
NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JC
- For the applicant - Mohd Izzul Faris Mohd Ghani & Sandra Tan Xue Qi; M/s Syed Ibrahim & Co
- For the respondent - Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal & Arun Ganesh Boopalan; M/s Raj & Sach
In an action for striking out, inexcusable delay in prosecuting the claim or appeal thereon can be decisive in sealing the fate of the plaintiff. Where the Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR'), after filing an appeal in July 2014 against the decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, had sit on the appeal and had practically done nothing on it and not bothering even to follow up with the finalised case stated until June 2019, whereof it affirmed its intention to proceed with the appeal, then such inexplicable and inordinate delay must or must be deemed to have seriously prejudiced and caused serious financial hardship to the defendant taxpayer; it needs no emphasis that the DGIR's appeal ought to be struck off for want of prosecution.
Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Pulai Spring Resort Sdn Bhd  2 CLJ 247 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Want of prosecution - Appeal to High Court by Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') against deciding order of Special Commissioners of Income Tax - Delay in expediting appeal process - Whether provided satisfactory explanation for inaction - Whether caused prejudice to taxpayer - Whether showed DGIR disinterested in appeal - Whether delay inordinate and inexcusable - Whether case stated satisfied statutory requirements - Whether abuse of court process - Whether appeal could be rendered incompetent and could be struck out
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Additional assessment - Appeal against notice of additional assessment by taxpayer allowed by Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') - Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') appealed to High Court against SCIT's decision - Delay in expediting appeal process - Whether provided satisfactory explanation for inaction - Whether caused prejudice to taxpayer - Whether showed DGIR disinterested in appeal - Whether delay inordinate and inexcusable - Whether case stated satisfied statutory requirements - Whether abuse of court process - Whether appeal could be rendered incompetent and could be struck out
NOORIN BADARUDDIN J
- For the appellant - Mohammad Hafidz Ahmad; SRC & Nurul Amalina Mantaza; RC
- For the respondent - Anand Raj, Foong Pui Chi, Abhilaash Subramaniam & Yeoh Yu Xian; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
(i) Members of the Ahmadiyya sect are generally not Muslims and are not to be subjected to the dictates of Islamic law or statute, or any Syariah investigation or prosecution. However, to properly determine their constitutional and legal status, a differentiation must be made between those who were adherents of the faith by origin, and those who were professing the religion of Islam before embracing the doctrinal beliefs of the Ahmadiyya sect. The Civil Court is seized with jurisdiction to deal with those in the first category but not in the second; for the latter category, the right to determine belongs exclusively to the Syariah Court.
(ii) The Ahmadiyya worshippers in this judicial review application are made up of those who were born into Ahmadiyya families and were Ahmadiyya adherents by origin, and Muslims who had subsequently come to adopt the Ahmadiyya faith. Clearly, the applicants in the second category who are Malaysians fall squarely within the 'renunciation' cases and would therefore come within the jurisdiction of the Islamic Authorities respondents, and be subject to the two fatwas herein, until and unless they obtain an order from the Syariah Court that they are followers of the Ahmadiyya sect.
Maqsood Ahmad & Ors v. Ketua Pegawai Penguatkuasa Agama & Ors  2 CLJ 259 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Judicial review against decision of public authority - Jurisdiction - Officers of Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor ('JAIS') raided premises used by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at religious group to perform prayers - Applicants compelled to appear before Syariah Court on pain of monetary penalty - Whether applicants Ahmadiyya faith by origin or subsequent adherents - Whether applicants Muslims under law - Whether applicants fell within jurisdiction of JAIS - Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, s. 97
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA J
- For the applicants - Aston Paiva & Michael Cheah Ern Tien; M/s Amerbon
- For the 1st & 4th respondents - Hasnan Hamzah & Qushwa Hasnan; M/s Hasnan Hamzah
- For the 2nd, 3rd & 5th respondents - Muhammad Haziq Hashim; SLA, Selangor
Winding-up proceedings are not subject to or caught by an arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement does not stop a party from presenting and proceeding with a winding-up petition. The proper test to be applied for the grant of a Fortuna injunction where there is an arbitration agreement or clause is for the applicant to establish a prima facie dispute that the debt falls within the arbitration agreement.
PRPC Utilities And Facilities Sdn Bhd v. PBJV Group Sdn Bhd & Anor  2 CLJ 276 [HC]
COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Petition - Disputes between parties - Application to restrain presentation of winding-up petition - Whether winding-up proceedings subject to or caught by arbitral proceedings or arbitration agreement/clause - Whether arbitral proceeding proper forum for parties' dispute to be determined - Impact of arbitral proceedings and arbitration - Applicable tests
WAN MUHAMMAD AMIN WAN YAHYA JC
- For the plaintiff - Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam, Lee Shen Yee & Yap Jia Cheng; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
- For the defendants - Ismail Mohamed Arifin & Amirah Nadiah Muhamad; M/s Ram Reza & Muhammad
Construction work contracts, to which the Government is a party, is not included in the list of categories of contracts set out in the Schedule to Part II of the Temporary Measures for Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 ('Covid-19 Act'). If Parliament had intended to include Government construction work contracts in item 1 in the list of categories of contracts as set out in the Schedule for the purposes of s. 7 of the Covid-19 Act, it would have provided words to that effect. By not having done so, Government construction work contracts were meant to be covered by necessary implication.
SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia  2 CLJ 302 [HC]
CONTRACT: Construction contract - Works - Construction work contracts to which Government is party - Whether construction work contracts included in list of categories of contracts set out in Schedule to Part II of Temporary Measures for Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 ('Covid-19 Act') - Whether Covid-19 Act applicable - Whether elements of s. 7 of Covid-19 Act established
ALIZA SULAIMAN J
- For the plaintiff - Yusman Mohd Badar & Muhammad Nazmi Hanafi; M/s Chambers of Yusman Azlin Anwar
- For the defendant - Zureen Elina Mohd Dom & Aida Mastura Mohamed Aman; SFCs & Khong Hui Li; FC
Gender Discrimination An Affront To Common Sense
An Observation Of The Recent Decision In Suraini Kempe & Ors v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors  9 CLJ 979 [Read excerpt]
by Kevin De Rozario*  2 CLJ(A) i
ETHICS AND STANDARDS IN PRACTICE: FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES+ [Read excerpt]
by Rob Reis*  1 LNS(A) xiii
ENFORCEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE: A MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE [Read excerpt]
by Nor Hasliza Mat Hasan[i] Tengku Noor Azira Tengku Zainudin[ii]  1 LNS(A) xiv
SHOULD THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES BE PROTECTED? A STUDY FROM A JURISPRUDENCE PERSPECTIVE [Read excerpt]
by Shahrul Mizan Bin Ismail[i] Anbahnanthy G Krishnan Murthy[ii] Visalini Sivaji[iii]  1 LNS(A) xv
|Number||Title||In force from||Repealed||Superseded|
|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
|ACT 831||Finance Act 2020||The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65||-||-|
|ACT 830||Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020||27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3||-||-|
|Number||Title||In force from||Principal/Amending Act No|
|ACT A1644||Anti-Trafficking In Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) Act 2022||Not Yet In Force||ACT 670|
|ACT A1643||Small Estates (Distribution) (Amendment) Act 2022||Not Yet In Force||ACT 98|
|ACT A1642||Constitution (Amendment) Act 2022||Not Yet In Force||ACT 000|
|ACT A1641||Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Amendment) Act 2022||14 January 2022||ACT 829|
|ACT A1640||Advocates Ordinance (Sabah) (Amendment) Act 2021||10 January 2022 [PU(B) 5/2022]||SABAH CAP. 2|
|Number||Title||Date of Publication||In force from||Principal/ Amending Act No|
|PU(A) 31/2022||Customs (Amendment) Regulations 2022||8 February 2022||15 February 2022||PU(A) 397/2019|
|PU(A) 30/2022||Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 2) Order 2022||4 February 2022||5 February 2022 to 5 June 2022||ACT 723|
|PU(A) 29/2022||Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 3) Order 2022||4 February 2022||5 February 2022 to 5 June 2022||ACT 723|
|PU(A) 28/2022||Medical (Amendment of Second Schedule) Order 2022||3 February 2022||4 February 2022||ACT 50|
|PU(A) 27/2022||Income Tax (Restriction On Deductibility of Interest) (Amendment) Rules 2022||31 January 2022||1 February 2022||PU(A) 175/2019|
|Number||Title||Date of Publication||In force from||Principal/ Amending Act No|
|PU(B) 89/2022||Notification Under Subregulation 3(3) For The Purpose of General Election For The Seat of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore||9 February 2022||10 February 2022||PU(A) 185/2003|
|PU(B) 88/2022||Notification Under Paragraph 3(1)(e) For The Purpose of General Election For The Seat of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore||9 February 2022||10 February 2022||PU(A) 185/2003|
|PU(B) 87/2022||Notice To Hold A General Election To The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore||9 February 2022||10 February 2022||PU(A) 386/1981|
|PU(B) 86/2022||Determination of Electoral Roll For The General Election of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Johore||9 February 2022||10 February 2022||PU(A) 293/2002|
|PU(B) 85/2022||Temporary Exercise of Ministerial Functions||9 February 2022||10 February 2022||ACT 388|
|Act/Principal No.||Title||Amended by||In force from||Section amended|
|PU(A) 57/2002||Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 9) Order 2002||PU(A) 499/2021||Year of assessment 2021||Paragraphs 2 and 4; Schedule|
|PU(A) 103/2007||Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing (Invocation of Part IV) Order 2007||PU(A) 496/2021||31 December 2021||Paragraph 4|
|PU(A) 293/2006||Perintah Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram (Penggunaan Bahagian IV) 2006||PU(A) 495/2021||31 Disember 2021||Perenggan 2 dan 4|
|PU(A) 293/2006||Anti-Money Laundering (Invocation of Part IV) Order 2006||PU(A) 495/2021||31 December 2021||Paragraphs 2 and 4|
|AKTA 50||Akta Perubatan 1971||PU(A) 28/2022||4 Februari 2022||Jadual Kedua|
|Act/Principal No.||Title||Revoked by||In force from|
|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|
|PU(A) 100/2013||Labuan Business Activity Tax (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2013||PU(A) 483/2021||Year of assessment 2020|
|PU(A) 14/1977||Dental Regulations 1976||PU(A) 443/2021||1 January 2022|
|PU(A) 219/2011||Income Tax (Exchange of Information) Rules 2011||PU(A) 436/2021||2 December 2021|