Back to Top

Issue #14/2020
26 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

GODELL PARKING SDN BHD v. MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA [2020] 3 CLJ 455
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AHMADI ASNAWI JCA; AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA; SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-01(NCVC)(W)-636-11-2018]
03 FEBRUARY 2020

Where a contract carries a clause that provides for its termination, and the clause is followed by another stipulating for mediation of the disputes, it is not unlikely that the two clauses, despite the seeming inter-connectedness, are stand-alone clauses which therefore must be read and construed independently of each other. What may flow from this is that, a termination effected under one clause without the prior invocation of the other may still be perfectly valid and lawful, the basis being that, whilst one clause provides a mechanism for a party to be notified of a default and to rectify the same, the other stands as a Scott v. Avery clause that can be invoked once the termination is disputed.

CONTRACT: Agreement - Concession agreement - Termination - Whether lawful - Concession agreement entered between company and local government to run street parking collection system - Whether there was breach of terms of concession agreement in respect of company's exclusivity of concession areas - Whether company sole and exclusive concession holder - Whether concession agreement could be terminated without prior recourse to mandatory mediation process under cl. 11 of concession agreement


MOTOR INSURERS' BUREAU OF SINGAPORE v. AMGENERAL INSURANCE BHD [2020] 3 CLJ 581
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
NORDIN HASSAN J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24-76-09-2018]
17 JULY 2019

In Malaysia, the law is that a Malaysian insurer is not liable to satisfy a judgment by a victim of an accident involving a Malaysian registered vehicle in Singapore. That aside, the law with regard to third party coverage in motor policy in Malaysia is different from Singapore’s, and the dissimilarity has resulted in the courts in the two countries passing diametrically opposing judgments on the same obtaining issue. This being the case, an application to enforce a Singapore judgment pertaining to third party coverage obtained from the Singapore court in Malaysia pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 cannot at all be considered as convenient or just. It is indeed contrary to our public policy and ought to be refused.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Foreign judgment - Registration of judgment of High Court of Singapore - Application to set aside Singapore judgment - Whether timeline for registration of judgment complied with - Whether grounds for setting aside satisfied - Whether enforcement of Singapore judgment contrary to public policy in Malaysia - Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, s. 5 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 67 rr. 5(2) & 9(1)


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Syarafi Abu lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 234 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Syarafi Abu [2018] 4 CLJ 110

  2. Amuthavalli Andiappan v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1098 (CA) overruling the High Court case of PP v. Amuthavalli Andiappan [Criminal Trial No: 45B-05-05/2015]
LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 2030

HSBC BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD v. KHOR GAIK KIM & ORS

A reasonable man will enquire why strangers would pay large sum of money into his accounts. The act of turning a blind eye and failing to question the legality and propriety of the transaction whilst retaining the illegal funds is sufficient to establish the tort of knowing receipt.

TORT: Fraud - Dishonest assistance - Knowing receipt - Unjust enrichment - Bank officer defrauded bank by making unauthorized withdrawals from customer's bank accounts - Funds were transferred to relations - Recipient of funds alleged money received in his account was from online gambling - Whether there was disposal of bank's assets as a consequence of a breach of fiduciary duty - Whether a reasonable and honest mind would have questioned legality and propriety of transactions - Whether recipient of fund had knowledge of bank officer's breach of fiduciary duty - Whether tort of knowing receipt established

  • For the plaintiff - Koh San Tee, Quah Hui Shien & Ng Juen Yee; M/s Benjamin Dawson
  • For the 3rd defendant - R Subramaniam; M/s RS Maniam

[2018] 1 LNS 2032

MUHAMAD YAZID MOHD YAHAYA v. PP

Placement of the sentence of fine ahead of imprisonment in the Act is indicative of the legislature's intention to prioritise the sentence of fine rather than imprisonment for an offence under section 12(3) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Offences under ss. 12(2) and 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether offence was of such a nature as to warrant imprisonment as the first option in sentencing - Whether Sistem Pengurusan Rekod Jenayah Polis DiRaja Malaysia could be relied upon in considering the sentence to be imposed

  • For the appellant - Lai Choe Ken; Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan
  • For the respondent - Ainul Wardah Shahidan, Deputy of Public Prosecutor Negeri Perak

[2018] 1 LNS 2033

KIRTANA SUBRAMANIAM v. PP

The finding of fact at the end of the prosecution case that there was a positive identification of the accused should not be disturbed.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Offence of robbery - Defence of alibi - Findings of facts - Whether there was ample opportunity for witnesses to identify accused during commission of offence - Whether there was positive identification of accused by witnesses - Whether findings of fact that there was a positive identification of accused could be disturbed

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Offence of robbery - Accused was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with 1 stroke of whipping for each charge and sentence to run concurrently - Use of parang during commission of robbery - Accused found guilty after full trial - Whether sentence was manifestly excessive - Whether accused had caused considerable fear to victims - Whether public interest requires a heavy sentence to be imposed

  • For the appellant - Ravee Ponusamy; M/s P Ravee & Co
  • For the respondent - Nur Farhana Hashim, Deputy of Public Prosecutor

[2019] 1 LNS 79

PP lwn. MOHD FARHAN AKMAL MOHAMED NAIN

Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan saksi-saksi yang berada di kawasan serbuan terjumlah kepada penyembunyian keterangan dan niat yang curang. Tindakan sedemikian menyebabkan ketidakadilan kepada tertuduh kerana tidak berpeluang untuk mengemukakan pembelaannya.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes pendakwaan - Kelompangan - Kegagalan memanggil saksi-saksi di tempat kejadian - Identiti tertuduh dipersoalkan - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil orang-orang yang berada di kawasan serbuan telah menyebabkan berlakunya kesenjangan kepada rantaian keterangan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada wujud penyembunyian keterangan dan niat curang oleh pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada telah menyebabkan ketidakadilan kepada tertuduh - Sama ada inferen bertentangan wajar dibangkitkan terhadap pihak pendakwaan

  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - T/n Azrul Faidz Abdul Razak, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
  • Bagi pihak pembelaan - Charan Singh; T/n Nurul Charan & Co

[2019] 1 LNS 120

MOHD FAHMI REZA MOHD ZARIN lwn. PP

Komunikasi dalam bentuk kerja expresi seni yang dicipta oleh tertuduh untuk mengkritik kerajaan dan pihak berkuasa yang bersifat palsu serta berniat untuk menyakitkan orang lain tidak boleh dianggap sebagai suatu bentuk parodi dan komunikasi tersebut adalah melanggar peruntukan s. 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998.

UNDANG-UNDANG SIBER: Penyalahgunaan fasiliti laman web sosial - Muatnaik kata-kata yang menghina - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman di bawah s. 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 - Penghantaran komunikasi yang palsu sifatnya melalui laman profil facebook - Kritikan terhadap kerajaan dan pihak berkuasa melalui kerja seni - Sama ada komunikasi yang dibuat adalah suatu bentuk ejekan atau penghinaan - Sama ada komunikasi berniat untuk menyakitkan orang lain - Sama ada komunikasi yang dibuat boleh dianggap sebagai suatu bentuk parodi

  • Bagi pihak responden - TPR Mohd Sophian Zakaria; Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Perak
  • Bagi pihak perayu - Syahredzan Johan; T/n Ramrais & Partners

CLJ 2020 Volume 3 (Part 4)

Where a contract carries a clause that provides for its termination, and the clause is followed by another stipulating for mediation of the disputes, it is not unlikely that the two clauses, despite the seeming inter-connectedness, are stand-alone clauses which therefore must be read and construed independently of each other. What may flow from this is that, a termination effected under one clause without the prior invocation of the other may still be perfectly valid and lawful, the basis being that, whilst one clause provides a mechanism for a party to be notified of a default and to rectify the same, the other stands as a Scott v. Avery clause that can be invoked once the termination is disputed.
Godell Parking Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya [2020] 3 CLJ 455 [CA]

CONTRACT: Agreement - Concession agreement - Termination - Whether lawful - Concession agreement entered between company and local government to run street parking collection system - Whether there was breach of terms of concession agreement in respect of company's exclusivity of concession areas - Whether company sole and exclusive concession holder - Whether concession agreement could be terminated without prior recourse to mandatory mediation process under cl. 11 of concession agreement

 

AHMADI ASNAWI JCA
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA

  • For the appellant - K Selva Kumaran & Yau Jie Luan; M/s Rose Hussin
  • For the respondent - Kenny Chan Yew Hoong, Yatiswara Ramachandran & Shafrina Mohd Shahidan; M/s Azman Davidson & Co

The Management Corporation of a residential strata building is empowered under the law to enact, introduce and implement its own additional by-laws and house rules, including such by-laws as would prohibit the use of the residential units in the building for business or short-term rentals. Such by-laws are consonant with ss. 59(1) & (2) and 70(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA) read with regs. 5 and 28 of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015, and are not violative of s. 70(5) SMA, art. 13 of the Federal Constitution or any provision of the National Land Code. The Corporation however cannot impose a fine of RM200 on a daily basis for the breach or breaches thereof, since fines can only be imposed for each infringement and not for each day of the infringement.
Innab Salil & Ors v. Verve Suites Mont Kiara Management Corporation [2020] 3 CLJ 480 [CA]

|

LAND LAW: Strata title - Management corporation - Enactment of House Rules prohibiting use of residential units for business including short term rental - Validity of House Rules - Whether violated s. 70(5) of Strata Management Act 2013 ('SMA') - Whether additional by-law within meaning of s. 70(2) of SMA - Whether management corporation empowered to make additional by-laws for regulating common property in strata scheme - Whether House Rules agreed upon by majority residents - Whether short term rental fell within realm of 'lease' or dealing in s. 70(5)(a) of SMA - Whether caught by prohibition under s. 70(5)(a) of SMA read together with s. 5 of National Land Code

WORDS & PHRASES: 'short term rentals' - Meaning of - Whether arrangements of temporary nature - Whether 'dealings' as envisaged under National Land Code ('NLC') - Whether exempted from limitations and prohibitions under NLC - Whether provides security of tenure - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 70(5)

BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA

  • For the appellant - Manpal Singh Sachdev, Loke Wei Lun & Yap Teck Hui; M/s Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Partners
  • For the respondent - Shahabudin Shaik Alaudin, Rosnida Che Ibrahim, Siti Murazwani Zulkeflee; M/s Shahabudin & Rozima

A third party who was made a party in a suit for breach of contract between a plaintiff and a defendant, and who had earlier been found contractually liable in damages to the defendant, cannot be ordered to indemnify the defendant by paying damages directly to the plaintiff in the suit. To do so would offend the law on privity and the principle that third party proceedings for contribution are independent of and separate from proceedings by a plaintiff against a defendant; it is also akin to entering judgment for the plaintiff against the third party, which therefore contravenes O. 16 r. 7 Rules of Court 2012.
Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya v. Digital Viva Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 520 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Third party proceedings - Indemnity - Third party proceeding to seek indemnity in event defendant found liable - Whether treated same way as action between plaintiff and defendant - Whether third party proceeding constituted separate action between defendant and third party within main action - Order by court for third party to pay judgment sum and costs directly to plaintiff - Whether tantamount to entering judgment for plaintiff against third party - Whether judge misappreciated nature of third party proceedings - Rules of Court 2012, O. 16 r. 3

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Applicability - Whether decision in earlier suit binds present suit - Whether liability arose from judgment in earlier suit - Whether earlier judgment must 'necessarily and with precision' determine point in issue - Whether res judicata applicable

 

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
YEOH WEE SIAM JCA

  • For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Lateefa Koya & David Yii; M/s Daim & Gamany
  • For the 1st respondent - Mahathir Abdullah; M/s Mahathir
  • For the 2nd respondent - Yee Fei Churn, Davis Ee & Tung Kai Mun; M/s Davis & Low

The High Court may refuse recognition or enforcement of an arbitration award under s. 39(1)(a)(vii) of the Arbitration Act 2005, so long as it is applied for by the party against whom such an order is sought and the award is yet to become binding on the parties. It is also clear that under s. 39(2) of the Act the court is cloaked with a discretion to adjourn a decision, and even suspend an award, when it is so moved under s. 39(1)(a)(vii).
Malaysian Bio-Xcell Sdn Bhd v. Lebas Technologies Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 3 CLJ 534 [CA]

|

ARBITRATION: Award - Recognition of - Seeking to stay application to enforce award - Whether award yet to become binding on parties - Whether court has discretion to hear application to suspend recognition or enforcement order based on award not yet becoming final - Whether conditions for grant of stay made out - Whether terms of s. 39(1)(a)(vii) of Arbitration Act 2005 met

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay - Application for - Stay application to enforce arbitration award - Whether award yet to become binding on parties - Whether court has discretion to hear application to suspend recognition or enforcement order based on award not yet becoming final - Whether conditions for grant of stay made out - Whether terms of s. 39(1)(a)(vii) of Arbitration Act 2005 met

ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI JCA
MARY LIM JCA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA

  • For the appellant - Gavin Jayapal, Tan Koon Heo & Tan Joes Nan; M/s Gavin Jayapal
  • For the respondent - Sivabalan Sankaran, Tharmini Paramasivan & Kristie Chew; M/s Tan Swee Im, Siva & Partners

The court may in appropriate cases grant relief that is not expressly prayed for by an applicant provided it merits the ends of justice and it is not inconsistent with the relief applied for. Hence, where for instance an order for mandamus was applied for against a Municipal Council it is always open for the court, if so warranted by the circumstances, to order for both certiorari and mandamus to issue; this is in accord with O. 53 r. 3(3) Rules of Court 2012 and the inherent powers of the court, and allowable under the prayer for “lain-lain perintah yang difikirkan suaimanfaat oleh mahkamah” as normally pleaded in such applications.
Beemer Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya [2020] 3 CLJ 555 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Certiorari - Municipal Council refused to act on order by Appeal Board to allow applicant's application for planning permission - Applicant sought order of mandamus to compel Municipal Council to comply with Appeal Board's order - Whether court could grant order of certiorari not prayed for - Whether appropriate case to grant relief not prayed for - Whether granting of certiorari order consistent with relief expressly prayed for

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local authority - Municipal Council - Application for planning permission to change category of use of building from 'residential' to 'commercial' - Application rejected by Municipal Council - Applicant appealed against Municipal Council's decision to Appeal Board - Appeal Board dismissed appeal but later allowed appeal after re-hearing - Municipal Council refused to act on order by Appeal Board to allow application - Whether Appeal Board's order tainted with illegality - Whether Municipal Council could disregard orders issued by Appeal Board - Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss. 18 & 26 - National Land Code, ss. 52 & 122

VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA J

  • For the applicant/respondent - Ringo Low & Ting Lee Ping; M/s Ringo Low & Assocs
  • For the respondent/appellant - Sofiah Omar; M/s Kamaruzaman Arif, Amran & Chong

Hotel operators owe a duty of care to keep their paying guests safe and free from harm. Where the servant of a hotel had negligently handed over the access card to a room occupied by a guest to an unauthorised person, as to result in the latter barging into the room and inflicting physical harm to the guest, then liability for the tort must firmly rest with the hotel. The hotel would remain liable even if the access card was obtained by deception or undue influence, unless it can be shown that it had taken all reasonale steps to not pass the card without the guest’s permission.
Kinta Riverfront Hotel & Suites Sdn Bhd v. Chang Yok Kee & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 571 [HC]

|

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Duty of care of hotel - Breach - Allegation of - Whether there were breaches and failures on hotel's part in granting access to room occupied by its guests to another party - Whether guests suffered damages and injuries - Whether hotel ought to be held liable

DAMAGES: Negligence - Duty of care - Duty of care of hotel - Breach - Whether there were breaches and failures on hotel's part in granting access to room occupied by its guests to another party - Whether guests suffered damages and injuries - Whether hotel ought to be held liable - Whether damages awarded to injured guests sufficient

MOHD RADZI HARUN JC

  • For the appellant - Chan Kok Keong, James Ong & Sukhvinder Singh; M/s Chan & Assocs
  • For the respondents - Raam Kumar & Norleena Jamal; M/s KB Tan Kumar & Partners

In Malaysia, the law is that a Malaysian insurer is not liable to satisfy a judgment by a victim of an accident involving a Malaysian registered vehicle in Singapore. That aside, the law with regard to third party coverage in motor policy in Malaysia is different from Singapore’s, and the dissimilarity has resulted in the courts in the two countries passing diametrically opposing judgments on the same obtaining issue. This being the case, an application to enforce a Singapore judgment pertaining to third party coverage obtained from the Singapore court in Malaysia pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 cannot at all be considered as convenient or just. It is indeed contrary to our public policy and ought to be refused.
Motor Insurers' Bureau Of Singapore v. Amgeneral Insurance Bhd [2020] 3 CLJ 581 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Foreign judgment - Registration of judgment of High Court of Singapore - Application to set aside Singapore judgment - Whether timeline for registration of judgment complied with - Whether grounds for setting aside satisfied - Whether enforcement of Singapore judgment contrary to public policy in Malaysia - Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, s. 5 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 67 rr. 5(2) & 9(1)

 

NORDIN HASSAN J

  • For the plaintiff - Chong Yee Leong, Melvin Ng Yet Ting & Noryusriza Zulkifli; M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
  • For the defendant - Liew Teck Huat & Lim Qi Si; M/s Suflan T H Liew & Partners

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. UBM TRADE LINK SDN BHD v. MTE EXHIBITION SDN BHD* [Read excerpt]
    by PAW YING HUI [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxiv

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

    UBM TRADE LINK SDN BHD v. MTE EXHIBITION SDN BHD*

    by
    PAW YING HUI

    In this article, Paw Ying Hui examines the factors considered by the Court in deciding whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction in a suit for trade mark infringement and passing off.

    Introduction

    In the case of UBM Trade Link Sdn Bhd v. MTE Exhibition Sdn Bhd,[1] the plaintiff (“UBM Trade Link”) had filed an application for interlocutory injunction in respect of a trade mark infringement and passing off dispute (hereinafter referred to as “the Application”). Both UBM Trade Link and the defendant (“MTE Exhibition”) were in the business of organising exhibitions. The following are the representations of their trademarks:

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of M/s Shearn Delamore & Co.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. THE MEDIATION ACT 2012: A TOOTHLESS TIGER OR A SLEEPING GIANT? [Read excerpt]
    by EDWARD KURUVILLA* [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxv

  4. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xxv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    THE MEDIATION ACT 2012: A TOOTHLESS TIGER OR A SLEEPING GIANT?

    by
    EDWARD KURUVILLA*

    Abstract

    Although – in theory – the advantages of mediation as an alternative method for dispute resolution are beyond doubt, mediation remains an unattractive option – in practice – to disputants in Malaysia, owing largely to the lethargic state of the Mediation Act 2012. Since its introduction almost eight (8) years ago, there has been very little activity surrounding the Act and not a single amendment has been made to it since.

    With mediation becoming an increasingly popular choice for dispute resolution globally, the question needs to be asked; whether or not the Act in its present form does more to promote, or to stifle, the use of mediation in Malaysia. This paper shall seek to:- (i) highlight select obvious shortcomings of the Act in its present form; (ii) compare and contrast the Act against other legislation within and beyond the jurisdiction; and (iii) propose amendments to overcome the problems in the identified areas.

    . . .

    Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.


    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) 96/2020 Employees Provident Fund (Amendment of Third Schedule) Order 2020 20 March 2020 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020 ACT 452
PU(A) 91/2020 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within the Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2020 18 March 2020 18 March 2020 to 31 March 2020 ACT 342
PU(A) 90/2020 Weights and Measures (Compounding of Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 17 March 2020 1 April 2020 PU(A) 208/1990
PU(A) 89/2020 Weights and Measures (Amendment) Regulations 2020 17 March 2020 1 April 2020 PU(A) 292/1981
PU(A) 88/2020 Control of Supplies (Prohibition onExport) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 17 March 2020 18 March 2020 PU(A) 86/2011

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 179/2020 Declaration of Quarantine Stations (No. 2) 2020 21 March 2020 22 March 2020 ACT 342
PU(B) 178/2020 Notice of Extension of Period of Objection 18 March 2020 19 March 2020 ACT 267
PU(B) 177/2020 Notice of Initiation of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to the Imports of Flat Rolled Product of Non-Alloy Steel Plated or Coated With Aluminium and Zinc Originating or Exported from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam 17 March 2020 18 March 2020 ACT 504; PU(A) 233/1994
PU(B) 176/2020 Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to the Imports of Cellulose Fibre Reinforced Cement Flat and Pattern Sheet Originating or Exported from the Republic of Indonesia 17 March 2020 18 March 2020 ACT 504; PU(A) 233/1994
PU(B) 175/2020 Notice Under Section 70 17 March 2020 18 March 2020 ACT 333

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 86/2011 Control of Supplies (Prohibition on Export) Regulations 2011 PU(A) 88/2020 18 March 2020 Second Schedule
PU(A) 309/2018 Registration of Pharmacists (Amendment of First Schedule) (No. 3) Order 2018 PU(A) 85/2020   Subparagraph 2(a)
PU(A) 14/2020 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (West Coast Expressway (Taiping-Banting)) Order 2020 PU(A) 78/2020 1 March 2020 Paragraphs 2 and 3, First Schedule and Second Schedule
ACT 452 Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 PU(A) 96/2020 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020 Third Schedule
AKTA 452 Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 PU(A) 96/2020 1 April 2020 sehingga 31 Disember 2020 Jadual Ketiga

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 77/2020 Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2020 PU(A) 84/2020 1 March 2020
PU(A) 451/1999 Environmental Quality (Refrigerant Management) Regulations 1999 PU(A) 79/2020 1 June 2020
PU(A) 132/2019 Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2019 PU(A) 77/2020 24 February 2020
PU(A) 379/2006 Control of Supplies (Marking of Scheduled Article) Order 2006 PU(A) 63/2020 21 February 2020
PU(A) 225/2010 Postal Services (Postage Rates) Rules 2010 PU(A) 44/2020 1 February 2020