Back to Top

Issue #41/2018
11 October 2018

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

  1. Case(s) of the Week

    1. VIJAYARAO SEPERMANIAM v. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, MALAYSIA [2018] 9 CLJ 141

    2. ZAINOOR FAIROSE ATONG (AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
      MAZLAN AHMAD, DECEASED) & ORS v. PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD
       [2018] 9 CLJ 47

  2. Appeal Update

    1. Appeal Update

  3. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2018 Volume 9 (Part 1)

    3. CLJ 2018 Volume 9 (Part 2)

  4. Articles

    1. LNS Article(s)

  5. Legislation Highlights

    1. Principal Acts

    2. Amending Acts

    3. PU(A)

    4. PU(B)

    5. Legislation Alert

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

VIJAYARAO SEPERMANIAM v. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, MALAYSIA [2018] 9 CLJ 141
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD MAAROP CJ (MALAYA), HASAN LAH FCJ, RAMLY ALI FCJ, AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ, ZAHARAH IBRAHIM FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01-37-08-2017(P)]
16 AUGUST 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Public servants – Dismissal from service – Disciplinary proceedings against public servant – Public servant requested for relevant documents and sought to be accorded oral hearing to make representations on charges – Disciplinary authority did not entertain public servant’s requests – Public servant dismissed from service – Whether public servant denied right to be heard and right to documents – Whether dismissal from public service lawful, constitutional, valid and operative – Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, regs. 4(2)(g), (i), 25(1), 28, 37(2)(a), 38, 135(2)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Dismissal – Public servants – Right to appeal – Disciplinary proceedings against public servant – Public servant requested for relevant documents and sought to be accorded oral hearing to make representations on charges – Disciplinary authority did not entertain public servant’s requests – Public servant dismissed from service – Whether public servant had constitutional right to appeal to Appeal Board against decision of Public Service Commission – Federal Constitution, art. 144(5A) and (5B) – Public Services Disciplinary Board Regulations 1993, regs. 5(1), 14

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties – Right to be heard – Disciplinary proceedings against public servant – Public servant requested for relevant documents and sought to be accorded oral hearing to make representations on charges – Disciplinary authority did not entertain public servant’s requests – Public servant dismissed from service – Whether public servant denied right to be heard and right to documents – Whether dismissal from public service lawful, constitutional, valid and operative – Federal Constitution, art. 132(1)(c)


ZAINOOR FAIROSE ATONG (AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
MAZLAN AHMAD, DECEASED) & ORS v.
PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD
[2018] 9 CLJ 47
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN JCA, BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA, ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCVC)(A)-1324-08-2015]
16 MAY 2017

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction – High Court – Co-ordinate jurisdiction – Whether High Court has power to set aside order of another High Court of coordinate jurisdiction – Whether judgment regularly obtained – Principle in Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysia Finance Bhd – Whether applicable


APPEAL UPDATE  
  1. Cha Siang Hock v. PP [2018] 1 LNS 463 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Cha Siang Hock [Criminal Trial No: 45A-102-10/2014]

  2. Orang-orang Yang Tidak Dikenali Yang Menduduki Atas Tanah Geran No. SP 1642, Portion No. 3 (Dikenali Sebagai Kampung Baru Pulau Tiga, Sungai Layar) Mukim Sungai Petani, Daerah Kuala Muda, Kedah v. Dato' Seri M Mahadevan Mahalingam [2018] 1 LNS 285 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Dato' Seri M Mahadevan Mahalingam v. Orang-orang Yang Tidak Dikenali Yang Menduduki Atas Tanah Geran No. SP 1642, Portion No. 3 (Dikenali Sebagai Kampung Baru Pulau Tiga, Sungai Layar) Mukim Sungai Petani, Daerah Kuala Muda, Kedah [2017] 1 LNS 166

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2016] 1 LNS 1176

PER: TAN JOO YEN

UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Perceraian - Sijil perceraian - Permohonan pengesahan sijil perceraian yang dikeluarkan di luar Malaysia - Perkahwinan tidak diupacarakan di Malaysia - Sama ada pemohon boleh bergantung kepada s. 107(3) Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan & Perceraian) 1976 untuk mendaftarkan sijil perceraian yang dikeluarkan di luar Malaysia - Sama ada sijil penceraian yang dikeluarkan di luar Malaysia boleh didaftarkan dibawah A. 67 k. 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012

 Bagi pihak pemohon - Tan Eng Hwa; T/n Tan Eng Hwa & Co

[2016] 1 LNS 1234

JAN DE NUL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD & ANOR v. VINCENT TAN CHEE YIOUN & ANOR & OTHER CASES

ARBITRATION: Award - Challenging arbitration award - Preliminary objection - Challenging jurisdiction of court on application under s. 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') - Whether arbitration between parties an international arbitration – Whether s. 42 of AA applications filed by parties was a non-starter - Whether r. 1(1)(ii) of KLRCA Rules 2013 was in force during determination of arbitration dispute

ARBITRATION: Award - Challenging arbitration award - Question of law - Application under s. 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') - Originating summons failed to set out in prescribed form and format the specific questions of law raised, grounds in support and specific paragraphs of impugned award - Whether application complied with O. 69 r. 4 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Whether mere technical non-compliance - Whether non-compliance was curable pursuant to O. 1A and O. 2 r. 1 of ROC

ARBITRATION: Award - Question of law - Whether questions posed satisfied s. 42(1A) of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether questions posed substantially affected rights of parties and a genuine question of law - Whether questions were non-starter - Whether a finding of fact could be transformed into a question of law

ARBITRATION: Award - Question of law - Application of correct test by tribunal - Claim for restitution and consequential losses arising from total failure of consideration - Determining issue of total failure of consideration - Whether tribunal applied correct test in coming to conclusion that there was no total failure of consideration - Whether determination of total failure of consideration was a finding of fact based on evidence of experts

ARBITRATION: Award - Challenging arbitration award - Assessment of damages - Challenge to damages awarded - Question submitted before tribunal - Absalom exception - Whether quantum of damages was a matter for tribunal to decide - Whether caught under Absalom exception

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Setting aside of part of final award - Whether award was made in excess of jurisdiction - Whether award contains decisions on matters beyond scope of submission to arbitration under s. 37(1)(a)(v) Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') - Whether final award was in breach of public policy and natural justice under ss. 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of AA 2005 - Whether tribunal had given every opportunity to parties to present evidence and make representations on all issues that arose for determination

CONTRACT: Consideration - Total failure of consideration - Whether a total failure of consideration is looked at from perspective of party in default - Whether existence or otherwise of total failure of consideration is a question of fact

OS 24C(ARB)-32-10/2015 & OS 24C(ARB)-45-12/2015
 For the plaintiffs - Rajendra Navaratnam, Raja Kumar, Raja Kandan & Mak Hon Pan; M/s Azman, Davidson & Co
 For the defendants - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Balan Nair Thamodaran, Clinton Tan & Surendra Ananth; M/s Thomas Philip

OS 24C(ARB)-34-10/2015
 For the plaintiffs - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Balan Nair Thamodaran, Clinton Tan & Surendra Ananth; M/s Thomas Philip
 For the defendants - Rajendra Navaratnam, Raja Kumar, Raja Kandan & Mak Hon Pan; M/s Azman, Davidson & Co

[2017] 1 LNS 900

LOW BOON FUAH v. SUNWAY CITY SDN BHD

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Principles and procedures - Cause of action - Issues on pleading - Whether facts to sustain cause of action sufficiently pleaded

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Issues to be tried - Irrevocable undertaking - Cause of action premised on failure to fulfill obligation under irrevocable undertaking - Defendant raised preliminary objection on irrevocable undertaking - Allegation that irrevocable undertaking required to be stamped - Defendant already obtained benefit from irrevocable undertaking - Whether defendant could raise objection to plain language of irrevocable undertaking which he had previously accepted in writing and benefited from - Whether there were any triable issues

 For the plaintiff - Jugeet Kaur; M/s Malkit Singh Randhawa
 For the defendant - Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal; M/s David Lingam & Co

[2017] 1 LNS 931

MAGNAKATA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. OSMAN BAHTIN & ORS

CONTRACT: Intention - Intention of parties - Sale and purchase agreement - Status of money to be held by solicitors as stakeholders - Whether intention of parties could be gleaned from sale and purchase agreement and their subsequent conduct - Whether conduct of parties accorded with intention of parties

LEGAL PROFESSION: Solicitors - Stakeholders - Money deposited with solicitor as stakeholder - Whether duty of a stakeholder was imposed upon solicitors by conduct of parties - Whether solicitors held monies as stakeholder in medio pending outcome of relevant events - Whether monies held by a firm of advocates and solicitors subject to r. 2(1)(a) Solicitors' Accounts (Deposit Interest) Rules 1990 - Whether interest earned in fixed deposit account kept by solicitors as stakeholders must be returned to parties

 For the plaintiff - Norhisham Shaidi; M/s Norhisham & Co
 For the defendants - Fathima Idris; M/s Idris & Associates

[2017] 1 LNS 1777

PATHMANABAN MUNIANDY lwn. PENTADBIR TANAH PEJABAT TANAH DAERAH GOMBAK & SATU LAGI

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Pampasan - Pampasan bagi pecah pisah keatas baki tanah - Pengambilan tanah untuk tujuan naik taraf kuasa elektrik - Baki tanah masih luas dan ekonomik bagi tanah pertanian - Sama ada awad yang minima sebanyak 2% dari harga pasaran adalah wajar

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Perintah pampasan - Nilai pasaran - Pampasan keatas tanah di bawah laluan rentis - Pentadbir memberikan kadar 10% - Sama ada kadar yang diberikan oleh pentadbir bertentangan dengan peruntukan Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990

 Bagi pihak pemohon - Christna Jacob & Indran; T/n Indran K, C Jacob & Associates
 Bagi pihak responden 1 - Etty Eliany Tesno; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
 Bagi pihak responden 2 - Mehala; T/n Shook Lin & Bok


CLJ 2018 Volume 9 (Part 1)

COURT OF APPEAL

BIG Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd v. Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Ahmadi Asnawi, Kamardin Hashim JJCA
(Contract - Agreement - Breach - Whether contract frustrated) [2018] 9 CLJ 1 [CA]

 For the appellant - Paul Tang Nguong Wee, Camillus Lau Sii Fang & Norman Liew Hock Zee; M/s Tan, Yap & Tang Advocs
 For the respondent - Henry Ling; M/s Ling & Wong Advocs 

Kraas Solutions Sdn Bhd v. Konsesi Kota Permatamas Sdn Bhd
Badariah Sahamid, Mary Lim, Yeoh Wee Siam JJCA
(Contract - Concession agreement - Supply of goods - Whether there was valid contract) [2018] 9 CLJ 26 [CA]

 For the appellant - Vishnukumar R Visvanathan & Caroline Mary George; M/s Syed Alwi & Ng & Co
 For the respondent - Jasvinjit Singh; M/s Jasvinjit Singh & Co 

Zainoor Fairose Atong (As The Representative Of The Estate Of Mazlan Ahmad, Deceased) & Ors v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd
Alizatul Khair Osman, Badariah Sahamid, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA
(Civil Procedure - High Court - Co-ordinate jurisdiction - Whether High Court has power to set aside order of another High Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction) [2018] 9 CLJ 47 [CA]

 For the appellant - Americk Sidhu; M/s Americk Sidhu
 For the respondent - RK Nathan; M/s Vinod Kamalanathan & Assocs 

HIGH COURT

Bodibasixs Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Entogenex Industries Sdn Bhd
Azizul Azmi Adnan J
(Contract; Tort - Goods sold and delivered - Claim for payment - Negligence - Whether breach of duty of care - Whether losses foreseeable) [2018] 9 CLJ 52 [HC]

 For the plaintiff - Colin Victor George; M/s James Edwin & Co
 For the defendant - Dhanaraj Vasudevan & B Devandra; M/s Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim 

Catherine Koo & Ors v. Koo Lin Shen & Ors
Azimah Omar J
(Civil Procedure - Joinder of parties - Application to extricate or remove defendants from proceeding and order that had been obtained) [2018] 9 CLJ 71 [HC]

 For the plaintiff - KL Pang & Shelby Chin; M/s Cheah Teh & Su
 For the 2nd to 5th defendants - Aric Wong & Teh Su Jin; M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill
 For the 6th and 7th defendants - V Varuna; M/s Kumar & Partnership
 For the 8th to 11th defendants - V Sivaparamjoty; M/s V Siva & Partners 

Farid S Shah Mansour lwn. PP
Abu Bakar Katar PK
(Lalulintas Jalan; Prosedur Jenayah - Memandu bawah pengaruh alkohol hingga menyebabkan kematian - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman) [2018] 9 CLJ 92 [HC]

 Bagi pihak perayu - Kuldeep Singh Gill; T/n Kuldeep Singh Gill, J Jena & Co
 Bagi pihak responden - Zabidah Ahmad; TPR 

PP lwn. Mustaza Abdul Rahman
Nordin Hassan H
(Undang-undang Jenayah; Keterangan - Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 130J(1)(b), 130M, 130J(1)(a) - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan dibuktikan - Permohonan untuk saksi terlindung - Sama ada memprejudis tertuduh) [2018] 9 CLJ 101 [HC]

 Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Mohamed Mustaffa P Kunyalam; TPR
 Bagi pihak OKT - Farida Mohamed; T/n Hidayati & Partners, T/n Faizal Rahman & Co 

SPM Membrane Switch Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor
Wan Ahmad Farid Salleh JC
(Contract - Breach - Damages - Assessment of - Loss of profit) [2018] 9 CLJ 130 [HC]

 For the plaintiff - Hazman Ahmad, Razlan Hadrib & Nadirah Izyan Azaddin; M/s Omar Ismail Hazman & Co
 For the defendant - Muhammad Haziq Hashim; State Assistant Legal Advisor, Selangor 

SUBJECT INDEX

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Joinder of parties - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)(a) - Application to extricate or remove defendants from proceeding and order that had been obtained - Whether provision of O. 15 r. 6(2)(a) promote erasure of records and distortion of historical integrity of proceedings - Whether application was retrospective in effect - Whether order obtained pursuant to proceedings determined upon merits - Whether court duly issued final order - Whether court functus officio - Whether application misconceived and without merits, baseless and abuse of process of court process
Catherine Koo & Ors v. Koo Lin Shen & Ors
(Azimah Omar J) [2018] 9 CLJ 71 [HC]

Jurisdiction - High Court - Co-ordinate jurisdiction - Whether High Court has power to set aside order of another High Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction - Whether judgment regularly obtained - Principle in Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysia Finance Bhd - Whether applicable
Zainoor Fairose Atong (As The Representative Of The Estate Of Mazlan Ahmad, Deceased) & Ors v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd
(Alizatul Khair Osman, Badariah Sahamid, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 47 [CA]

CONTRACT

Agreement - Breach - Sale and purchase agreement - Sale of land - Term in contract that if land proprietor fails, refuses or unable to execute transfer of land, purchaser entitled to refund and to treat sale and purchase agreement as cancelled, null and void - Land proprietor failed to obtain consent from Director of Lands and Surveys - Whether contract frustrated - Whether frustration of contract self-induced - Whether order of specific performance of sale and purchase agreement ought to be granted - Whether damages ought to be assessed - Whether caveat on land ought to be removed - Contracts Act 1950, s. 75
BIG Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd v. Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Ahmadi Asnawi, Kamardin Hashim JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 1 [CA]

Agreement - Concession agreement - Supply of goods - Respondent unaware of contract entered by main contractor with sub-contractor (appellant) for supply of goods - Goods delivered by appellant and in possession of respondent - Whether appellant has right to remove goods - Whether appellant's right arose pursuant to retention of title clause in supply and carpentry work agreement - Whether there was valid contract between appellant and respondent - Whether Sale of Goods Act 1957 applicable - Whether appellant could seek restitution under s. 71 of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether respondent unjustly enriched
Kraas Solutions Sdn Bhd v. Konsesi Kota Permatamas Sdn Bhd
(Badariah Sahamid, Mary Lim, Yeoh Wee Siam JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 26 [CA]

Breach - Damages - Assessment of - Loss of profit - Formula premised on expenditure of plaintiff related to performance of agreement - Whether plaintiff entitled to sum reflected in statement of claim - Interest - Pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest pursuant to O. 42 r. 12 Rules of Court 2012 - Whether interest awarded at rate of 5% per annum from date of writ to date of realisation - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 11
SPM Membrane Switch Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor
(Wan Ahmad Farid Salleh JC) [2018] 9 CLJ 130 [HC]

Goods - Goods sold and delivered - Claim for payment - Manufacturer engaged by company to manufacture mosquito repellent - Product delivered to company - Company failed to make payment - Manufacturer sued company for goods sold and delivered - Company counterclaimed for negligence - Whether manufacturer owed duty of care - Whether there was breach of duty of care - Whether losses sustained by company foreseeable - Express contractual terms limited manufacturer's liability to company - Whether just, fair or reasonable for duty of care to be imposed upon manufacturer
Bodibasixs Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Entogenex Industries Sdn Bhd
(Azizul Azmi Adnan J) [2018] 9 CLJ 52 [HC]

TORT

Negligence - Manufacturing of goods - Manufacturer engaged by company to manufacture mosquito repellent - Product delivered to company - Company failed to make payment - Manufacturer sued company for goods sold and delivered - Company counterclaimed for negligence - Whether manufacturer owed duty of care - Whether there was breach of duty of care - Whether losses sustained by company foreseeable - Express contractual terms limited manufacturer's liability to company - Whether just, fair or reasonable for duty of care to be imposed upon manufacturer
Bodibasixs Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Entogenex Industries Sdn Bhd
(Azizul Azmi Adnan J) [2018] 9 CLJ 52 [HC]

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Saksi - Saksi pendakwaan - Permohonan untuk saksi terlindung - Tujuan - Melindungi identiti saksi bagi keselamatan saksi - Sama ada permohonan sebelum perbicaraan memprejudis tertuduh - Perkataan 'may' dalam s. 14(1) Akta Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 - Sama ada tidak bersifat mandatori
PP lwn. Mustaza Abdul Rahman
(Nordin Hassan H) [2018] 9 CLJ 101 [HC]

LALULINTAS JALAN

Memandu bawah pengaruh alkohol hingga menyebabkan kematian - Tertuduh hilang kawalan kenderaan dan melanggar si mati, menyebabkan kematiannya - Sabitan dan hukuman - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Sama ada hasil sampel darah tertuduh mengesahkan kandungan alkohol - Sama ada pengaruh alkohol menyebabkan tertuduh hilang keupayaan mengawal kenderaannya hingga melanggar si mati - Sama ada tertuduh menyebabkan kematian si mati - Sama ada Majistret gagal menimbangkan keterangan kes pendakwaan secara maksima - Sama ada pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie - Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987, s. 44(1)(a)
Farid S Shah Mansour lwn. PP
(Abu Bakar Katar PK) [2018] 9 CLJ 92 [HC]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH

Hukuman - Memandu bawah pengaruh alkohol sehingga menyebabkan kematian - Tertuduh hilang kawalan kenderaan dan melanggar si mati, menyebabkan kematiannya - Tertuduh disabitkan dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara tiga tahun dan denda RM9,000 - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Sama ada hasil sampel darah tertuduh mengesahkan kandungan alkohol - Sama ada pengaruh alkohol menyebabkan tertuduh hilang keupayaan mengawal kenderaannya hingga melanggar si mati - Sama ada tertuduh menyebabkan kematian si mati - Sama ada Majistret gagal menimbangkan keterangan kes pendakwaan secara maksima - Sama ada pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie - Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987, s. 44(1)(a)
Farid S Shah Mansour lwn. PP
(Abu Bakar Katar PK) [2018] 9 CLJ 92 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH

Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 130J(1)(b), 130M, 130J(1)(a) - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan dibuktikan - Sama ada pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie - Kenyataan bersumpah dari kandang salah - Sama ada diterima mahkamah - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah penafian dan fikiran terkemudian - Sama ada pendapat pakar diterima mahkamah - Sama ada tertuduh disabitkan - Sama ada mahkamah mempertimbangkan faktor mitigasi dan faktor pemberatan hukuman
PP lwn. Mustaza Abdul Rahman
(Nordin Hassan H) [2018] 9 CLJ 101 [HC]


CLJ 2018 Volume 9 (Part 2)

FEDERAL COURT

Vijayarao Sepermaniam v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia
Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ
(Administrative Law; Constitutional Law - Public servants - Dismissal from service - Disciplinary proceedings against public servant) [2018] 9 CLJ 141 [FC]

 For the appellant - MM Athimulan; M/s Athimulan & Co
 For the respondent (PSC) - Shamsul Bolhassan & Maisarah Juhari SFCs; AG Chambers 

COURT OF APPEAL

CIMB Bank Bhd v. Lee Kim Kee & Ors And Another Appeal
David Wong Dak Wah, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Zamani A Rahim JJCA
(Limitation; Tort; Partnership - Negligence - Banking negligence - Bank released monies to solicitor after solicitor submitted fake documents on client's information) [2018] 9 CLJ 168 [CA]

 For the appellant - Hoi Jack S'ng & Vivien Teh Yue Wen; M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill
 For the 1st respondent - Tan Bak Lee; M/s Tan Bak Lee & Co
 For the 2nd respondent - M Kanesan; M/s M Kanesan & Assocs
 For the 3rd, 4th & 5th respondents - Loo Peh Fern; M/s Param & Co 

Karun Klasik Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd
Alizatul Khair Osman, Nallini Pathmanathan, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA
(Utilities; Statutory Interpretation - Electric - Claim for loss of revenue - Tampering of meter) [2018] 9 CLJ 184 [CA]

 For the appellant - Jack Yow & Vincy Wong; M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
 For the respondent - Balvinder Singh Kenth, Gurmel Singh & Nur Zalika Mohd Asri; M/s Kenth Partnership 

HIGH COURT

Affin Bank Bhd v. Goh Hock Hai
Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh JC
(Contract; Limitation - Agreement - Guarantee - Demand guarantee) [2018] 9 CLJ 217 [HC]

 For the plaintiff - Chan Shao Hang & Karen Mak; M/s Shahrizat Rashid & Lee
 For the defendant - Amareson; M/s Amareson & Meera 

Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Also Known As "Honda Motor Co, Ltd") v. DNC Asiatic Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Suit
Azizah Nawawi J
(Intellectual Property - Copyright - Infringement - Allegation of infringement in artistic works concerning motorcycle) [2018] 9 CLJ 229 [HC]

 For the plaintiff - Linda Wang & CP Khon; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co
 For the defendant - Steven Cheok, Sarguna & Nichole Chong; M/s Kandiah & Sri
 For the defendant (Subsistence and Ownership of Copyright) - Khoo Guan Huat, PY Kuek & Melissa Long; M/s Skrine 

Mohammad Habib Mohd Appis lwn. PP
Abd Halim Aman H
(Undang-Undang Jenayah - Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 15(1) - Kesalahan memberikan diri sendiri dadah berbahaya) [2018] 9 CLJ 259 [HC]

 Bagi pihak perayu - Naran Singh; T/n Naran Singh & Co
 Bagi pihak responden - Rosidah Abu Bakar; TPR 

PP v. Rozita Mohamad Ali
Abd Majid Hamzah JC
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure - Offences - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Abuse of domestic help) [2018] 9 CLJ 265 [HC]

 For the applicant - Hanif Khatri, Rozal Azimin, Yazeed Azad, Luqman Mazlan; M/s Shamsuddin & Co
 For the respondent - Mohammad Iskandar & V Shiloshani; DPPs 

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Dismissal - Public servants - Right to appeal - Disciplinary proceedings against public servant - Public servant requested for relevant documents and sought to be accorded oral hearing to make representations on charges - Disciplinary authority did not entertain public servant's requests - Public servant dismissed from service - Whether public servant had constitutional right to appeal to Appeal Board against decision of Public Service Commission - Federal Constitution, art. 144(5A) and (5B) - Public Services Disciplinary Board Regulations 1993, regs. 5(1), 14
Vijayarao Sepermaniam v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia
(Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2018] 9 CLJ 141 [FC]

Public servants - Dismissal from service - Disciplinary proceedings against public servant - Public servant requested for relevant documents and sought to be accorded oral hearing to make representations on charges - Disciplinary authority did not entertain public servant's requests - Public servant dismissed from service - Whether public servant denied right to be heard and right to documents - Whether dismissal from public service lawful, constitutional, valid and operative - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, regs. 4(2)(g), (i), 25(1), 28, 37(2)(a), 38
Vijayarao Sepermaniam v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia
(Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2018] 9 CLJ 141 [FC]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Fundamental liberties - Right to be heard - Disciplinary proceedings against public servant - Public servant requested for relevant documents and sought to be accorded oral hearing to make representations on charges - Disciplinary authority did not entertain public servant's requests - Public servant dismissed from service - Whether public servant denied right to be heard and right to documents - Whether dismissal from public service lawful, constitutional, valid and operative - Federal Constitution, art. 132(1)(c)
Vijayarao Sepermaniam v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia
(Ahmad Maarop CJ (Malaya), Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ) [2018] 9 CLJ 141 [FC]

CONTRACT

Agreement - Guarantee - Demand guarantee - Claim for payment - Notice of demand - Two notices of demand issued - Cause of action - Whether accrued after demand made against guarantor - Whether time started to run from date of first notice of demand - Whether first notice of demand ceased to be valid - Whether cause of action arose from date of second notice of demand - Whether claim statute barred - Whether claim commenced more than six years after expiry of limitation period - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)(a)
Affin Bank Bhd v. Goh Hock Hai
(Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh JC) [2018] 9 CLJ 217 [HC]

CRIMINAL LAW

Offences - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Abuse of domestic help - Accused released on her entering into bond with one surety of RM20,000 for period of five years - Whether s. 294(1) of Criminal Procedure Code ceased to be applicable to serious offences vide Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2016 - Whether sentence proportionate to seriousness of injuries sustained by domestic help - Penal Code, s. 326
PP v. Rozita Mohamad Ali
(Abd Majid Hamzah JC) [2018] 9 CLJ 265 [HC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Revision - Sentence - Abuse of domestic help - Accused charged for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Accused released on her entering into bond with one surety in sum of RM20,000 for period of five years - Whether s. 294(1) of Criminal Procedure Code ceased to be applicable to serious offences vide Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2016 - Whether sentence proportionate to seriousness of injuries sustained by domestic help - Whether judge considered element of public interest in meting out sentence - Penal Code, s. 326
PP v. Rozita Mohamad Ali
(Abd Majid Hamzah JC) [2018] 9 CLJ 265 [HC]

Sentencing - Mitigating factors - Appeal by prosecution against sentence - Abuse of domestic help - Accused charged for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Accused released on her entering into bond with one surety in sum of RM20,000 for period of five years - Whether s. 294(1) of Criminal Procedure Code ceased to be applicable to serious offences vide Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2016 - Whether fact that complainant wished not to pursue case could be mitigating factor to be considered - Whether sentence proportionate to gravity and seriousness of offence - Penal Code, s. 326
PP v. Rozita Mohamad Ali
(Abd Majid Hamzah JC) [2018] 9 CLJ 265 [HC]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Copyright - Infringement - Allegation of infringement in artistic works concerning motorcycle - Whether copyright subsisted in drawings of motorcycle - Whether plaintiff owned copyright in artistic works - Whether defendant's motorcycle reproduction of plaintiff's works - Whether there was infringement of copyright in plaintiff's works - Whether there was any flagrant infringement by defendants of copyright in plaintiff's works - Whether plaintiff's act in lawfully enforcing and/or asserting its copyrights in works against defendants may be validly sued upon defendants as unlawful interference with defendants' trade and business - Whether there was legitimate competition when defendants' motorcycle copied or substantially copied works and/or infringed plaintiff's copyright in works - Copyright Act 1987, ss. 4(1)(a), 26B(5), 42
Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Also Known As "Honda Motor Co, Ltd") v. DNC Asiatic Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Suit
(Azizah Nawawi J) [2018] 9 CLJ 229 [HC]

LIMITATION

Cause of action - Accrual - Bank released monies to solicitor after solicitor submitted fake documents on client's information - When discovery of fraud/negligence made - Whether actions filed within time - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)(a)
CIMB Bank Bhd v. Lee Kim Kee & Ors And Another Appeal
(David Wong Dak Wah, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Zamani A Rahim JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 168 [CA]

Cause of action - Accrual of - Demand guarantee - Notice of demand - Two notices of demand issued - Cause of action - Whether accrued after demand made against guarantor - Whether time started to run from date of first notice of demand - Whether first notice of demand ceased to be valid - Whether cause of action arose from date of second notice of demand - Whether claim statute barred - Whether claim commenced more than six years after expiry of limitation period - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(1)(a)
Affin Bank Bhd v. Goh Hock Hai
(Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh JC) [2018] 9 CLJ 217 [HC]

PARTNERSHIP

Liabilities of partners - Legal firm - Bank released monies to solicitor after solicitor submitted fake documents on client's information - Client commenced action against solicitor and partner of firm - Whether solicitor acted in personal interest - Whether fraudulent/negligent acts of solicitor done in ordinary course of business of firm - Whether acts of solicitor bound firm - Whether partner of firm ipso facto liable for all liabilities of its partner
CIMB Bank Bhd v. Lee Kim Kee & Ors And Another Appeal
(David Wong Dak Wah, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Zamani A Rahim JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 168 [CA]

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Construction of statutes - Literal interpretation - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1) - Whether to be given plain meaning - Word 'after' - Whether to be construed as referring to a reasonable length of time - Whether licensee entitled to disconnect electricity supply after removal of tampered meter - Intention of Parliament - Whether mischief remedied once tampered meter removed
Karun Klasik Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd
(Alizatul Khair Osman, Nallini Pathmanathan, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 184 [CA]

TORT

Negligence - Banking negligence - Bank released monies to solicitor after solicitor submitted fake documents on client's information - Client commenced action against bank and solicitor - Whether bank negligent by acting on documents presented to it - Whether bank obligated to return monies negligently released to solicitor to client
CIMB Bank Bhd v. Lee Kim Kee & Ors And Another Appeal
(David Wong Dak Wah, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Zamani A Rahim JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 168 [CA]

UTILITIES

Electric - Claim for loss of revenue - Tampering of meter - Whether basis for calculation of amounts due arbitrary and excessive - Removal of tampered meter - Whether licensee entitled to disconnect electricity supply after removal of tampered meter - Whether mischief remedied once tampered meter removed - Whether licensee empowered to disconnect electricity supply and take consequential action to recover loss of revenue - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 37, 38 & 39
Karun Klasik Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd
(Alizatul Khair Osman, Nallini Pathmanathan, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 184 [CA]

Electricity - Disconnection - Power to disconnect electricity supply of consumer - Electricity Supply Act 1990, s. 38(1) - Interpretation - Whether to be given plain meaning - Word 'after' - Whether to be construed as a reasonable length of time - Whether licensee entitled to disconnect electricity supply after removal of tampered meter - Whether mischief remedied once tampered meter removed
Karun Klasik Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd
(Alizatul Khair Osman, Nallini Pathmanathan, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA) [2018] 9 CLJ 184 [CA]

INDEKS PERKARA

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH

Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 15(1) - Kesalahan memberikan diri sendiri dadah berbahaya - Kes prima facie - Sama ada terbukti - Sampel air kencing diambil daripada perayu - Sama ada keterangan ditampilkan mengapa perlu disimpan selama 11 hari sebelum dihantar ke Jabatan Patologi - Sama ada terdapat pemutusan rantaian keterangan dan kelompangan dalam kes pendakwaan - Sama ada pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan elemen-elemen pertuduhan - Kanun Acara Jenayah, s. 173(f)
Mohammad Habib Mohd Appis lwn. PP
(Abd Halim Aman H) [2018] 9 CLJ 259 [HC]


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. DOES CIPAA APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY - THE DECISION OF BAUER (M) SDN BHD v. JACK-IN-PILE (M) SDN BHD [2018] 1 LNS 427, [2018] 4 MLJ 640 [Read excerpt]
    FOO JOON LIANG* [2018] 1 LNS(A) c

  2. [2018] 1 LNS(A) c
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    DOES CIPAA APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY - THE DECISION OF
    BAUER (M) SDN BHD v. JACK-IN-PILE (M) SDN BHD [2018] 1 LNS 427, [2018] 4 MLJ 640

    by
    FOO JOON LIANG*

    The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) came into force on 15th April 2014. Apart from introducing statutory adjudication, CIPAA also contained provisions which govern payment terms within the construction industry.

    Section 35, for instance, outlaws conditional payment arrangements. One commonly occurring conditional payment arrangement is the back-toback payment clause, by which a contractor agrees to pay his subcontractor only upon receipt of payment from the employer.

    Another such provision is Section 36, which introduces default terms for payment in the event the contract between parties is silent on certain aspects of payment.

    . . .

    *Advocate and Solicitor, FCIArb


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. WHAT IS FIQH AL-WAQI'?* [Read excerpt]
    MOHAMMAD HASHIM KAMALI [2018] 1 LNS(A) cii

  4. [2018] 1 LNS(A) cii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    WHAT IS FIQH AL-WAQI'?*
    by
    MOHAMMAD HASHIM KAMALI

    One of the hallmarks of Fiqh al-Waqi’ (reality-based fiqh) is its close connection with actual reality. Since reality and what people experience in their everyday lives are changeable, so are the rules of fiqh that seek to regulate them. Another point that characterises Fiqh al-Waqi’, much like the fiqh generally, is that it is responsive to people’s needs and accommodates them as far as possible. Bear in mind also that fiqh is by definition concerned with the practical rules of shariah (ahkam shar’iyyah ‘amaliyyah).

    It is reported that when ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (d. 101/721) was governor of Madinah, he adjudicated some cases brought to him based on the testimony of one witness and a solemn oath by the plaintiff, and did not insist on having two witnesses. But when he became caliph and moved to Damascus, he changed that position and demanded two upright witnesses for proof of claims in every case. When he was asked a question on this, his reply was that he found the people of Syria different from those of Madinah.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. (www.iais.org.my).


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. KEBOLEHTERIMAAN KOMUNIKASI TANPA PREJUDIS DI BAWAH AKTA KETERANGAN 1950 [Read excerpt]
    Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[i] Ahmad Azam Mohd Shariff[ii] Arthana Sarma Rao[iii] Nurul Aqilah Azmi[iv] Lim Chia Sin[v] Haneefa Ariffin[vi] Sutrisno Sujeno[vii] Mohamad Farhan Kamarudin[viii] [2018] 1 LNS(A) ciii

  6. [2018] 1 LNS(A) ciii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    KEBOLEHTERIMAAN KOMUNIKASI TANPA PREJUDIS DI BAWAH AKTA KETERANGAN 1950
    by
    Ramalinggam Rajamanickam[i]
    Ahmad Azam Mohd Shariff[ii]
    Arthana Sarma Rao[iii]
    Nurul Aqilah Azmi[iv]
    Lim Chia Sin[v]
    Haneefa Ariffin[vi]
    Sutrisno Sujeno[vii]
    Mohamad Farhan Kamarudin[viii]

    ABSTRAK

    Dalam suatu pertikaian, adakalanya pihak-pihak cuba untuk melakukan perbincangan atau perundingan ke arah menyelesaikan perikaian itu di luar mahkamah. Apabila suatu perundingan atau perbincangan dilakukan oleh pihak-pihak kepada suatu pertikaian, apa-apa komunikasi yang berlaku dalam situasi tersebut tidak seharusnya dikemukakan di mahkamah jika timbul isu kelak. Komunikasi sedemikian dipanggil sebagai komunikasi tanpa prejudis. Di Malaysia, komunikasi tanpa prejudis diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 23 Akta Keterangan 1950. Keistimewaan komunikasi tanpa prejudis digunakan secara meluas oleh pihak-pihak dalam rundingan sama ada melalui e-mel, pos, faks ataupun aplikasi media sosial. Apa-apa komunikasi lisan ataupun dokumen yang menggunakan frasa "tanpa prejudis" tidak boleh dikemukakan sebagai keterangan di mahkamah melainkan dengan persetujuan pihak-pihak dalam rundingan. Namun demikian, hanya disebabkan dokumen mempunyai frasa "tanpa prejudis," itu tidak bermakna pihak-pihak dalam rundingan dilindungi di bawah payung keistimewaan tanpa prejudis. Terdapat beberapa pengecualian kepada komunikasi tanpa prejudis menurut undang-undang keterangan Malaysia.

    . . .

    [i] Pensyarah Kanan, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: rama@ukm.edu.my.

    [ii] Profesor Madya, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: aazam@ukm.edu.my.

    [iii] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: arthanasr95@gmail.com.

    [iv] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: aqilahazmi78@gmail.com

    [v] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: estherchiasin94@gmail.com.

    [vi] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: haneefaariffin@gmail.com.

    [vii] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: sutrisnosujeno@gmail.com.

    [viii] Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: frhnkmrdn@live.com.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  7. OPERA STARS AND CHORUS GIRLS*
    The vexing tort of inducing breach of contract
    [Read excerpt]
    John Wilson** Kieran Pender*** [2018] 1 LNS(A) ci

  8. [2018] 1 LNS(A) ci
    logo
    AUSTRALIA

    OPERA STARS AND CHORUS GIRLS*
    The vexing tort of inducing breach of contract

    by
    John Wilson**
    Kieran Pender***

    "[C]ontracts should be kept rather than broken."  Lord Justice Rix in Stocznia Gdanska SA v. Latvian Shipping Co (No 3).[1]

    Economic torts are curious beasts. The field is infrequently litigated, partly because these common law actions have had their utility curtailed by legislation, and beset by jurisprudential uncertainty. The situation is not improved by the patchwork quilt of distinct claims within this category, ongoing disagreement about unifying threads and the divergent approaches taken by courts in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    While a practitioner might therefore approach this topic with hesitancy, it is imperative that lawyers — particularly those in employment and commercial practices — have a firm grasp of the topic.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 246 December 2017.

    ** Managing Legal Director, Bradley Allen Love.

    *** Research Associate, Bradley Allen Love.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 807 Service Tax Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 508/2018] -
ACT 806 Sales Tax Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 506/2018] -
ACT 805 Goods and Services Tax (Repeal) Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 510/2018] -
ACT 804 Dental Act 2018 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 803 Anti-Fake News Act 2018 11 April 2018 [PU(B) 174/2018] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1573 Supply (Reallocation of Appropriated Expenditure) Act 2018 2 July 2018  
ACT A1572 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 512/2018] ACT 438
ACT A1571 Customs (Amendment) Act 2018 1 September 2018 [PU(B) 511/2018] ACT 235
ACT A1570 Sports Development (Amendment) Act 2018 Not Yet In Force ACT 576
ACT A1569 Arbitration (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2018 8 May 2018 [PU(B) 265/2018] ACT 646

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 250/2018 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Order 2016 (Amendment) 2018 3 October 2018 1 April 2017 to 23 May 2021 PU(A) 144/2016
PU(A) 249/2018 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2016 (Amendment) 2018 3 October 2018 1 April 2017 to 23 January 2021 PU(A) 11/2016
PU(A) 248/2018 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Order 2015 (Amendment) 2018 3 October 2018 1 April 2017 to 13 March 2020 PU(A) 45/2015
PU(A) 247/2018 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2015 (Amendment) 2018 3 October 2018 1 April 2017 to 13 February 2020 PU(A) 24/2015
PU(A) 246/2018 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014 (Amendment) 2018 3 October 2018 1 April 2017 to 29 March 2019 PU(A) 81/2014

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 550/2018 Notice of Intention To Designate Site As Heritage Site 2 October 2018 3 October 2018 ACT 645
PU(B) 549/2018 Notice of Intention To Designate Site As Heritage Site 2 October 2018 3 October 2018 ACT 645
PU(B) 548/2018 Notice To Third Parties 2 October 2018 3 October 2018 ACT 613
PU(B) 547/2018 Notice of Contested Election - By-Election of The Dewan Rakyat of P.132 Port Dickson For The State of Negeri Sembilan 1 October 2018 2 October 2018 PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 546/2018 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of The Board 1 October 2018 2 October 2018 ACT 551

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(B) 12/2018 Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of the Board PU(B) 546/2018 2 October 2018 Schedule
PU(A) 24/2015 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2015 PU(A) 247/2018 1 April 2017 to 13 February 2020 Paragraph 4 and Schedule
PU(A) 81/2014 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014 PU(A) 246/2018 1 April 2017 to 29 March 2019 Paragraph 4 and Schedule
PU(A) 339/2013 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 3) Order 2013 PU(A) 244/2018 1 April 2017 to 15 November 2018 Paragraph 4 and Schedule
PU(A) 258/2014 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (Expedited Review) (No. 2) Order 2014 PU(A) 243/2018 1 April 2017 to 15 November 2018 Paragraph 4 and Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 461/1997 Fees (National Planetarium) Order 1997 PU(A) 177/2018 30 July 2018
PU(A) 349/2016 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Mechanism to Determine Unreasonably High Profit For Goods) Regulations 2016 PU(A) 130/2018 6 June 2018
PU(A) 184/2013 Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2013 PU(A) 125/2018 10 May 2018
PU(A) 187/2014 Goods and Services Tax (Imposition of Tax For Supplies in Respect of Designated Areas) Order 2014 PU(A) 123/2018 1 June 2018
PU(A) 185/2014 Goods and Services Tax (Application to Government) Order 2014 PU(A) 122/2018 1 June 2018