Back to Top

Issue #12/2020
12 March 2020

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHD v.
MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA & ANOR
[2020] 3 CLJ 153
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; IDRUS HARUN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-91-10-2018(W)]
31 JANUARY 2020

The right to appeal in civil matters from the High Court to the Court of Appeal under ss. 67 & 68 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA') is subject to the definition of "decision" in s. 3 CJA. Reading the three sections together, it is clear that a litigant is precluded from appealing against a High Court decision in an amendment application made in the course of trial that does not finally dispose of the rights of parties. To rule otherwise would not only allow parties in civil matters to circumvent the restrictions imposed by s. 3, and appeal every decision of the trial court, but delay the trial of cases in the civil courts.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Application to amend re-amended statement of claim allowed by High Court and affirmed by Court of Appeal - Whether decision on amendment application appealable - Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal - Whether question of jurisdiction could be raised at any time even if parties acquiesce/waive right to raise objection as to want of jurisdiction - Whether 'decision', 'judgment' or 'order' - Whether disposed of rights of parties - Whether amendment application made in course of trial - Whether amendment application filed prior to conclusion of trial and before High Court delivered judgment on liability - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('Act'), ss. 3, 50, 67 & 68

TORT: Negligence - Statutory duty - Breach of - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institution - Wrongful cancellation of degree programmes - Claim for damages - Whether there was duty of care owed - Whether there was breach of that duty - Whether damages proven

TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institution - Wrongful cancellation of degree programmes - Whether medical degree programmes terminated - Whether discretion properly exercised - Whether there was misfeasance in public office

WORDS & PHRASES: 'Decision' - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 3 - Whether to be read with ss. 67 and 68 - Whether limiting right of appeal in both criminal and civil appeals 


MOGAN RAJ RAVI & ANOR v. PP & OTHER APPEALS [2020] 3 CLJ 240
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA; MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEALS NO: W-05(M)-431-09-2017, W-05(M)-434-09-2017 & W-05(M)-435-09-2017]
20 JANUARY 2020

Whilst it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to secure the attendance of witnesses offered to the defence, failure per se to do so will not automatically attract any adverse inference against the prosecution; it all depends on the effort made to secure such attendance. This said, even where there was a misdirection on the part of the trial judge in dealing with this issue, a conviction could still be upheld if the appellate court is satisfied that a reasonable tribunal would have convicted the accused on the available evidence on a proper direction.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused persons charged for four charges under ss. 6, 12(2) and 39B(2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and two under s. 8 of Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 - Whether charges proven - Trial judge invoked double presumptions under ss. 37(d) and 37(da)(vi) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 against accused persons - Whether elements of possession and trafficking proven - Whether invocation of double presumptions constitutional - Decision in Alma Nudo Atenza v. PP & Anor - Whether conviction safe - Whether ought to be set aside 


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Low Chiew Mun v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 671 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Low Chiew Mun [Criminal Trial No: 45B-09-06/2015]

  2. A Sarpian Azmi lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 672 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. A Sarpian Azmi [2017] 1 LNS 2154

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 8

MUSA MAHMOOD & YANG LAIN v. MOHD KHAIRUL ISMAIL

Dokumen sokongan tidak semestinya diperlukan untuk membuktikan kewujudan sesuatu pinjaman. Keterangan lisan yang dipercayai adalah memadai untuk membuktikan kewujudan pinjaman tersebut.

PENGHUTANG-PENGHUTANG: Pinjaman peribadi - Tuntutan untuk bayaran balik pinjaman - Pertikaian berkenaan kewujudan pinjaman - Pinjaman diberikan pada tarikh-tarikh yang berasingan - Wang pinjaman dimasukkan ke dalam akaun syarikat yang berbeza dengan syarikat yang mengeluarkan resit penerimaan wang - Sama ada bukti pemindahan wang dan penerimaan wang telah dikemukakan - Sama ada keterangan lisan saksi-saksi boleh diterima apabila tiada dokumen sokongan dikemukakan untuk membuktikan pinjaman

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Sharizah Yahya; T/n Mohd Fadzli & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Hisyam Yusof; T/n WA Wan Adnan & Associates

[2019] 1 LNS 73

KHAIRIL AMIR HUSSAINI lwn. PP

Kegagalan tertuduh memberitahu kepada pegawai penyiasat ketika percakapan beramaran direkodkan bahawa beg yang berisi dadah berbahaya yang dipegang olehnya adalah milik orang lain menyebabkan pembelaan ketiadaan pengetahuan tertuduh menjadi satu pemikiran semula.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Pengetahuan - Beg berisi dadah berbahaya dijumpai dipegang oleh tertuduh ketika ditahan - Ketiadaan percakapan beramaran dikemukakan untuk melihat tertuduh memberitahu pegawai penyiasat bahawa beg yang dipegangnya adalah kepunyaan orang lain - Sama ada elemen pengetahuan telah dibuktikan melalui keterangan ikut keadaan - Sama ada anggapan di bawah ss 37(d) dan 37A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah satu pemikiran semula

  • Bagi pihak perayu - T/n J Kuldeep Kumar & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Nurshafini Mustafha, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2018] 1 LNS 2193

NAGARAJ SASULETHARAN v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS

The Findings of the Inquiry Officer being a report prepared for the Prevention of Crime Board's contemplation and satisfaction, the Court was not concerned with the use of the report by the Board or Minister and it was not necessary for the Findings by the Inquiry Officer to be exhibited.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under s. 19(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Detention of 2 years - Whether there was a requirement for the Inquiry Officer to exhibit her Findings - Whether there were sufficient averments by the Inquiry Officer to rely on the protection or immunity for non-disclosure under s. 21A of Prevention of Crime Act 1959

  • For the appellant - Najib Zakaria; M/s Najib Zakaria, Hisham & Co
  • For the respondents - Norazlin Mohd Yusof; Senior Federal Council; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2018] 1 LNS 2194

KHAIRUL NIZAM IBRAHIM v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS

When there is a delay in the context of fulfilling the requirement of "forthwith" under rule 3(4) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedures) Rules 1987, there must be an explanation for the delay in affording the applicant the right to representation.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Detention for 2 years - Police Investigating Officer failed to provide a copy of applicant's statement despite request - Whether the applicant was prejudiced and prevented from having an effective representation - Whether there was delay of 6 days from when the Officer in Charge of Detention Centre forwarded Borang 1 and when the Secretary of the Advisory Board received the said Borang 1

  • For the applicant - N Sivananthan & Jasmine Cheong; M/s Sivananthan
  • For the respondents - Adilah Roslan; Senior Federal Council; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2018] 1 LNS 2195

ANUAR ZULKARNAIN v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS

(i) The Deputy Minister's affidavit as a whole clearly shows that the Deputy Minister had applied his mind to the relevant considerations and was satisfied that both limbs of the requirements under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 were met before issuing the detention order.

(ii) Statements recorded during the investigative stage are not open for the Court to examine, the Court's scrutiny will be directed to the current order of detention.

(iii) The failure to obtain acknowledgment as required by rule 3(1)(a) of the Advisory Board Rules was not fatal as there had been substantial compliance.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Habeas corpus - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Detention under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Detention for 2 years - Alleged non-compliance with ss. 6(1) and 4 of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and s. 3(1)(b) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Advisory Board Procedures) Rules 1987 - Whether Detention Order was vague and invalid - Whether the Inquiry Officer failed to record statements - Whether the Police Investigating Officer failed to obtain an acknowledgment from the Applicant after handing over Borang 1

  • For the applicant - KL Chee; M/s KL Chee & Co
  • For the respondents - Siti Hajar Mat Radzi; Senior Federal Counsel; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

CLJ 2020 Volume 3 (Part 2)

The right to appeal in civil matters from the High Court to the Court of Appeal under ss. 67 & 68 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA') is subject to the definition of "decision" in s. 3 CJA. Reading the three sections together, it is clear that a litigant is precluded from appealing against a High Court decision in an amendment application made in the course of trial that does not finally dispose of the rights of parties. To rule otherwise would not only allow parties in civil matters to circumvent the restrictions imposed by s. 3, and appeal every decision of the trial court, but delay the trial of cases in the civil courts.
Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 153 [FC]

| |

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Application to amend re-amended statement of claim allowed by High Court and affirmed by Court of Appeal - Whether decision on amendment application appealable - Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal - Whether question of jurisdiction could be raised at any time even if parties acquiesce/waive right to raise objection as to want of jurisdiction - Whether 'decision', 'judgment' or 'order' - Whether disposed of rights of parties - Whether amendment application made in course of trial - Whether amendment application filed prior to conclusion of trial and before High Court delivered judgment on liability - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('Act'), ss. 3, 50, 67 & 68

TORT: Negligence - Statutory duty - Breach of - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institution - Wrongful cancellation of degree programmes - Claim for damages - Whether there was duty of care owed - Whether there was breach of that duty - Whether damages proven

TORT: Misfeasance - Misfeasance in public office - Accreditation survey of degree programmes offered by higher learning institution - Wrongful cancellation of degree programmes - Whether medical degree programmes terminated - Whether discretion properly exercised - Whether there was misfeasance in public office

WORDS & PHRASES: 'Decision' - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 3 - Whether to be read with ss. 67 and 68 - Whether limiting right of appeal in both criminal and civil appeals

AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
IDRUS HARUN FCJ

  • For the appellant - Steven Thiru, Gerard Lourdesamy, Gregory Das, Jeremiah Rais & AC Devi; M/s Gerard Samuel & Assocs
  • For the respondents - Mohd Hafarizam Harun & Nor Emelia Mohd Iszeham; M/s Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak

In order to raise the issue that the plaintiff's action for defamation was not maintainable on account of want of locus, it being the incorrect entity to sue, it was incumbent upon the defendants to mandatorily specify, in their pleadings, the alleged facts or acts leading to the said deficiency; To raise it at the appellate stage amounted to a transgression of the elementary principle of law that parties in litigation are bound by their pleadings.
Eagle One Investment Ltd & Ors v. Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 CLJ 218 [CA]

TORT: Defamation - Publication - Publication of article on website - Whether defamatory - Whether gave rise to impression that complainant was involved in corrupt practice - Whether caused loss of reputation - Whether article referred to complainant - Whether complainant's recourse was on action for malicious falsehood - Whether article satisfied test for defamatory imputation - Whether imputation tended to lower complainant in estimation of right-thinking members of society - Whether article referred to complainant - Whether published to third party

 

AHMADI ASNAWI JCA
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA

  • For the appellants - Mohd Izral Khairy & Zack Lim; M/s Izral Partnership
  • For the respondent - Jagjit Singh, Jasbeer Singh & M Uma Rani; M/s Jasbeer Nur & Lee

Whilst it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to secure the attendance of witnesses offered to the defence, failure per se to do so will not automatically attract any adverse inference against the prosecution; it all depends on the effort made to secure such attendance. This said, even where there was a misdirection on the part of the trial judge in dealing with this issue, a conviction could still be upheld if the appellate court is satisfied that a reasonable tribunal would have convicted the accused on the available evidence on a proper direction.
Mogan Raj Ravi & Anor v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 3 CLJ 240 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused persons charged for four charges under ss. 6, 12(2) and 39B(2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and two under s. 8 of Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 - Whether charges proven - Trial judge invoked double presumptions under ss. 37(d) and 37(da)(vi) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 against accused persons - Whether elements of possession and trafficking proven - Whether invocation of double presumptions constitutional - Decision in Alma Nudo Atenza v. PP & Anor - Whether conviction safe - Whether ought to be set aside

 

RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA

(Criminal Appeals No: W-05(M)-431-09-2017, W-05(M)-434-09-2017 & W-05(M)-435-09-2017)

  • For the 1st & 2nd appellants - Gooi Soon Seng & Ooi Pen Lyn; M/s Gooi & Azura
  • For the respondent - Dhiya Syazwani Izyan Mohd Akhir; DPP

Section 16U of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 does not clothe the Homebuyer Claims Tribunal with any jurisdiction to hear or entertain third parties when hearing claims for liquidated ascertained damages against the developers, even in their capacity as representatives of the homebuyers, except in circumstances as so exempted under s. 16U(2) and (3) thereof. To do so would constitute procedural impropriety and cause any award made thereat unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Hedgeford Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hee Yean & Anor And Another Application [2020] 3 CLJ 258 [HC]

|

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Application to quash awards handed down by Tribunal of Homebuyer Claims ('Tribunal') allowing homebuyers' claims against developer - Late delivery of vacant possession by developer to homebuyers - Liquidated ascertained damages - Whether homebuyers' claims in breach of full and final settlement agreement reached between developer and homebuyers - Whether settlement sum binding on homebuyers - Homebuyers absent or represented by third party during proceedings before Tribunal - Whether procedural impropriety - Whether awards ought to be quashed - Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966, s. 16U

LAND LAW: Vacant possession - Late delivery - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages - Application to quash awards handed down by Tribunal of Homebuyer Claims ('Tribunal') allowing homebuyers' claims against developer - Whether homebuyers' claims in breach of full and final settlement agreement reached between developer and homebuyers - Whether settlement sum binding on homebuyers - Homebuyers absent or represented by third party during proceedings before Tribunal - Whether procedural impropriety - Whether awards ought to be quashed - Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966, s. 16U

AZIZAH NAWAWI J

(Judicially Review No: WA-25-179-10-2016)

  • For the applicant - Justin Voon & Chiam Jia Yann; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
  • For the 1st respondent - Aarthi Jeyarajah; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

(Judicially Review No: WA-25-31-02-2017)

  • For the applicant - M Puvanna; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Justine Voon & Chiam Jia Yann; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing

The registered co-operative society in this case need not refer the dispute it had with its members and former office bearers to the Cooperative Commission Malaysia under s. 82(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act 1993 before seeking redress in civil courts.
Koperasi Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. Ismail Nordin & Ors [2020] 3 CLJ 277 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Writ and statement of claim - Application for - Whether action abuse of court process - Whether registered cooperative society could seek redress in civil courts - Whether cooperative society ought to refer dispute to Cooperative Commission Malaysia - Co-operative Societies Act 1993, ss. 23, 82 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(d)

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS: Societies - Co-operative society - Whether registered cooperative society could seek redress in civil courts - Whether cooperative society ought to refer dispute to Cooperative Commission Malaysia - Co-operative Societies Act 1993, ss. 23, 82

ANAND PONNUDURAI JC

  • For the plaintiff - Syamsul Azhar Ab Aziz; M/s Putra Taulan & Faiq Azizan
  • For the defendants - Mahfuzah Mohd Faizi; M/s Nurhayati & Mahfuzah

The grant of an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal, which effectively terminates a prosecution proceeding against an accused, is sufficient to afford him with a cause of action for malicious prosecution.
Pang Codan Rubber (M) Sdn Bhd v. Vijay Perumal [2020] 3 CLJ 299 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application to strike out action - Charge for theft against employee withdrawn and order of discharge not amounting to acquittal ('DNAA') granted - Employee commenced action for damages for malicious prosecution against former employer - Whether employee's action ought to be struck out - Whether action could be taken against former employer when charge was by Public Prosecutor - Whether former employer instrumental in action against employee - Whether grant of DNAA sufficient to establish element of cause of action in malicious prosecution - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19

 

SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J

  • For the plaintiff/respondent - Tharma Kumar Jaya Kumar; M/s Nazrin Nasir T Anand & Co
  • For the defendant/appellant - Harikannan Ragavan & Amanda Loh Li Xian; M/s Jayadeep Hari & Jamil

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. PENGECUALIAN RES JUDICATA DALAM AKTA KETERANGAN 1950 [Read excerpt]
    by Tan Chun Ming* Ramalinggam Rajamanickam** [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxi

  2. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    PENGECUALIAN RES JUDICATA DALAM AKTA KETERANGAN 1950

    by
    Tan Chun Ming*
    Ramalinggam Rajamanickam**

    1. PENGENALAN

    Akta Keterangan 1950 Malaysia digubal berdasarkan model Akta Keterangan 1872 India. Isi kandungan Akta Keterangan 1950 Malaysia (sebelum itu dikenali sebagai Ordinan Keterangan 1950) telah menerima pakai keseluruhan isi kandungan secara per verbatim untuk Bab “Penghakiman Mahkamah Bila Relevan” tanpa apa-apa pindaan oleh Parlimen Malaysia sebelum dan selepas merdeka sehingga hari ini.

    Bab “Penghakiman Mahkamah Bila Relevan” mengandungi lima peruntukan berkenaan dengan kerelevanan penghakiman, perintah dan dekri dengan prosiding yang sedang berlangsung. Seksyen 44 Akta Keterangan 1950 merupakan salah satu daripada peruntukan pengecualian kepada prinsip-prinsip res judicata yang telah diwujudkan di bawah Bab “Penghakiman Mahkamah Bila Relevan” dalam Akta Keterangan 1950 Malaysia ini. Bab ini meliputi seksyen-seksyen 40 sehingga seksyen 44 Akta Keterangan 1950. Seksyen 44 berbentuk pengecualian kepada seksyen-seksyen 40, 41 dan 42 Akta Keterangan 1950.

    . . .

    * Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara di Joseph Ting & Co. E-mel: tcming2@gmail.com.

    ** Profesor Madya (PhD), Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: rama@ukm.edu.my.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS* [Read excerpt]
    by John Wilson** Kieran Pender [2020] 1 LNS(A) xx

  4. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xx
    logo
    AUSTRALIA

    WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS*

    by
    John Wilson**
    Kieran Pender

    "No one should risk their reputation or job for exposing illegal behaviours." Anna-Maja Henriksson, Finland's Minister of Justice 2019 has been a busy year for those who follow developments in whistleblower protections. In February, following a protracted legislative process, the Australian Parliament finally passed landmark reform to better protect those who expose misconduct in the private sector. These changes were hailed as heralding a 'new era' for whistleblowers in this country.[1]

    In Europe, the European Union (EU) has promulgated an unprecedented EU-wide directive which will require every member state to implement significant whistleblower protection legislation within the next two years.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 254 Summer 2019.

    ** John Wilson is the managing legal director at Bradley Allen Love Lawyers. Kieran Pender is a visiting fellow at the Australian National University's Centre for International and Public Law. The views expressed here are their own.


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 826 Food Donors Protection Act 2020 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 825 Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 31 January 2020 -
ACT 824 Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 1 April 2020 [PU(B) 119/2020] -
ACT 823 Finance Act 2019 Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 22, Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 27, Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 29, Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 35, Finance Act 2010 [Act 702] see s 37 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 39 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1617 Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 590
ACT A1616 Central Bank of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 701
ACT A1615 Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 177
ACT A1614 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 10 February 2020 - para 2(a) and s 13 and 15; Year of assessment 2020 and subsequent years of assessment - para 2(b) and s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14; 1 January 2019 - s 8 ACT 445
ACT A1613 Carriage of Goods by Sea (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Foce ACT 527

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 41/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (East Coast Expressway-Phase 2) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 195/2016
PU(A) 40/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Seremban-Port Dickson Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 326/2004
PU(A) 39/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (North South Expressway Central Link and Klia Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 437/2002
PU(A) 38/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Butterworth-Kulim Expressway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 564/1996
PU(A) 37/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Johor Causeway-Johor Bahru-Tampoi Highway) (Amendment) Order 2020 31 January 2020 1 February 2020 PU(A) 14/1989

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 69/2020 Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Sarawak 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 68/2020 Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Sabah 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 67/2020 Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 66/2020 Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Johor 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 65/2020 Notice of Completion of Revision and Inspection of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Melaka 29 January 2020 30 January 2020 PU(A) 293/2002

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 195/2016 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (East Coast Expressway-Phase 2) Order 2016 PU(A) 41/2020 1 February 2020 Paragraph 2 and First Schedule
PU(A) 326/2004 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Seremban-Port Dickson Expressway) Order 2004 PU(A) 40/2020 1 February 2020 Paragraph 2 and First Schedule
AKTA 452 Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 AKTA A1611 15 Mac 2020 [PU(B) 158/2020] kecuali s. 6, 8 dan 11 Seksyen 4, 6, 9, 18, 43, 55A dan 55B
ACT 452 Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 ACT A1611 15 March 2020 [PU(B) 158/2020] except s. 6, 8 and 11 Sections 4, 6, 9, 18, 43, 55A and 55B
PU(A) 564/1996 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Butterworth-Kulim Expressway) Order 1996 PU(A) 38/2020 1 February 2020 Paragraph 2 and First Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 359/2019 Excise (Determination of Value of Locally Manufactured Goods For the Purpose of Levying Excise Duty) Regulations 2019 PU(A) 402/2019 1 January 2020
PU(A) 162/1977 Customs Regulations 1977 PU(A) 397/2019 1 January 2020
ACT 803 Anti-Fake News Act 2018 ACT 825 31 January 2020
AKTA 803 Akta Antiberita Tidak Benar 2018 AKTA 825 31 Januari 2020
PU(A) 460/1997 Trade Marks Regulations 1997 PU(A) 373/2019 27 December 2019