Back to Top

Issue #31/2020
23 July 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

DUBON BHD v. WISMA COSWAY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION [2020] 6 CLJ 589
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK);
ROHANA YUSUF FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-50-05-2019(J)]
21 MAY 2020
[2020] CLJ JT(3)

The rights of a joint management body or a management corporation to collect and receive payment from a parcel proprietor under ss. 33 and 77 of the Strata Management Act 2013, respectively, does not give it a lawful preference as a secured creditor over the assets of a company in liquidation.

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Proceedings against company - Leave to proceed claim against company as proprietor - Application for - Management corporation claimed for outstanding sums due and owed by company - Whether management corporation entitled to recover from proprietor guaranteed sum - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 77

LAND LAW: Strata title - Management corporation - Claim for outstanding sums due and owed by company as proprietor - Whether management corporation entitled to recover from proprietor guaranteed sum under s. 77 of Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether there was mandatory obligation on proprietors to pay amount incurred by management corporation in course of exercise of carrying out duties - Whether proprietors must settle outstanding amount before selling or transferring properties

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Interpretation of Act - 'shall by virtue of this section be guaranteed by the proprietors' - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 77 - Whether there was mandatory obligation on proprietors to pay amount incurred by management corporation in course of exercise of carrying out duties - Whether proprietors must settle outstanding amount before selling or transferring of properties - Whether condition precedent in legal documents of transfer or sales of strata unit shares


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“In both civil and criminal cases, rights exist and are being adjudged. In each the same inherent and constitutional rights exist. In each, the duty of the trial judge is the same. In each, the parties are entitled to justice under law. Concomitant with this is the trial judge's duty to determine and apply the law applicable to the facts found. To the lowest and humblest, to the weak, the poor, and to the strong, the same law applies. To be equally administered by a judge. However, justice does not exist in substantive law alone. Justice in the application of substantive law is dependent on the pre-existent fairness of the procedure; in other words, procedural due process in the trial of the cause. Procedural due process is not only for the parties, but, also, for the court itself. Only thereby can the court maintain its conscience and dignity. Only thereby can it appeal to, and justify the trust and confidence of the public.” – per Vernon Ong Lam Kiat JCA in Hong Yik Plastics (M) Sdn Bhd v. Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 4 CLJ 479

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 767

TEE YEE SEIN v. PP

1. Where circumstantial evidence is concerned, it is the cumulative and net effect which must lead to the irresistible inference that it was the accused who had intentionally caused the death of the deceased. It follows that fingerprint evidence should not be treated in isolation but is to be considered cumulatively with other evidence adduced before the court.

2. A defence of alibi mooted in a cautioned statement is unsustainable where the accused is positively identified as the person involved in the killing of the deceased, more so when coupled with the strength of circumstantial evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW: Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased succumbed to death due to stab wound and compression to neck - Deceased's personal belongings were found with accused at time of arrest - Accused pawned deceased hand phone soon after demise of deceased - DNA profile of accused found on deceased's fingernail - Fingerprint of accused was found in motorcar where deceased was found unconscious - Whether injury sustained by deceased was fatal in nature - Whether fingerprint evidence should be considered together with other evidence - Whether accused intentionally caused death of deceased - Whether cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence leads to irresistible conclusion that it was accused who had murdered deceased

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Alibi - Notice of alibi mooted through cautioned statement of accused - Accused positively identified as the person involved in killing of deceased - Identification of accused made through combined strength of circumstantial evidence - Whether defence of alibi collapsed

  • For the appellant - Chong Joo Tian
  • For the respondent - Ku Hayati Ku Haron, Timbalan Pendakwa raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2018] 1 LNS 829

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEREMBAN v. ERA BARU SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL

1. Where there is privity of contract between a contractor and a third party concerning payment of contribution relating to a project, the party which engaged the contractor cannot be held responsible for the default in payment that the third party had agreed to pay the contractor.

2. Communications, meetings and discussions do not constitute sufficient acknowledgment of debt under s. 26 of the Limitation Act 1953.

CONTRACT: Privity - Agreement with third party - Project for construction of road - Agreement reached between plaintiff and third party for payment of contribution - Third party failed to honour payment - Plaintiff commenced action against defendant to claim for contribution that is payable by third party - Whether third party was bound by agreement with plaintiff concerning payment of contribution - Whether defendant was responsible for payment - Whether defendant must make good third party's default - Whether plaintiff has cause of action against defendant

LIMITATION: Accrual of cause of action - Acknowledgement of debt - Communications, meetings and discussions between parties - Whether communications, meetings and discussions constitute sufficient acknowledgment of debt - Whether plaintiff's claim time barred - Limitations Act 1953, s. 26

  • For the appellant - S Satharuban & Anne Sangeetha; M/s Satha & Co
  • For the respondent - V Ganesalingam; M/s Ganesalingam Vijayaratnam & Aisha Jothilingan

[2018] 1 LNS 894

GP AUTOBAT SDN BHD v. BATTERY SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

1. A literal reading of a contract is not appropriate where the terms and conditions of the contract are not crystal clear or plain. The Court is entitled to take into consideration the background and surrounding circumstances of a contract where the language is unclear or there is doubt as to the meaning of terms used in the contract.

2. Annexures to a statement of claim cannot be treated as contemporaneous evidence to prove loss of profit as a result of a shortfall in the supply of grid panels by the defendant. The contemporaneous documentary evidence necessary to support such a claim is in the form of purchase orders, delivery orders, invoices and payment made.

CONTRACT: Construction - Construction of terms of contract - Unclear language and doubt as to meaning of terms used - Whether court was entitled to take into consideration background and surrounding circumstances of contract - Whether literal reading of words or terms used in contract was appropriate

CONTRACT: Breach - Damages - Loss of profit - Shortfall in supply of grid panels - Defendant purchased less grid panels than the amount allegedly agreed in contract - Whether defendant has agreed to a fixed monthly purchase of grid panels - Whether plaintiff has been paid for all grid panels supplied - Whether loss of profit proven

EVIDENCE: Proof of - Damages - Loss of profit - Shortfall in supply of grid panel - Contemporaneous documents - Reliance on annexures to statement of claim - Whether plaintiff could rely on annexures to statement of claim to prove damages - Whether annexures to statement of claim were contemporaneous documents - What amounts to contemporaneous documents

  • For the appellant - Gerald Samuel & Goik Kenzin; M/s Ramesh & Loo
  • For the respondent - Harpal Singh Grewal, Harwinder Kaur Harbhajan Singh & Nahvinah Selvaraj; M/s Ariffin, Yeo & Harpal

[2019] 1 LNS 306

PP lwn. MUHAMAD ASRI YAHAYA

Penemuan kad pengenalan tertuduh di dalam beg yang berisi dadah yang dijumpai di dalam bilik yang disewa oleh tertuduh jelas menunjukkan tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan dan milikan terhadap dadah. Apabila tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan keatas beg tersebut maka secara langsung anggapan pemilikan di bawah s. 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 adalah terpakai.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pemilikan - Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg galas bersama kad pengenalan tertuduh - Hanya tertuduh menggunakan bilik di mana beg berisi dadah dijumpai - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai di dalam beg - Sama ada anggapan di bawah ss. 37(d) dan 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai - Sama ada dadah adalah untuk tujuan pengedaran

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Pengetahuan - Dadah dijumpai di dalam beg galas bersama kad pengenalan tertuduh - Tertuduh mendakwa rumah disewa atas permintaan rakannya - Sama ada tertuduh telah memberikan penjelasan berkaitan penemuan beg di atas katil - Sama ada anggapan pemilikan di bawah ss. 37 (d) dan 37 (da)(iiia) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah dipatahkan

  • Bagi pihak tertuduh - B Murthy; T/n B Murthy & Co
  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Zabidah Ahmad, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kedah

[2019] 1 LNS 310

KOK LIN RUBBER SDN BHD lwn. MIRZAWATI AHMAD & SATU LAGI

Pertikaian berkenaan tujuan bayaran wang oleh plaintif kepada defendan sebagai pemegang amanah merupakan satu isu yang perlu dibicarakan.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penghakiman terus - Isu-isu untuk dibicarakan - Tuntutan plaintif untuk wang pemegang amanah - Pertikaian berkenaan tujuan bayaran wang oleh plaintif kepada defendan sebagai pemegang amanah - Sama ada tujuan bayaran wang sebagai pemegang amanah adalah adalah isu yang perlu dibicarakan

  • Bagi pihak perayu/plaintif - KH Lee & Pei Nie Lau; T/n Pei Nie Lau & Company
  • Bagi pihak responden/defendan - Zuriyah (menyebut bagi pihak); T/n Peter Miranda & Co

CLJ 2020 Volume 6 (Part 5)

An employee who is employed on a continuous and unbroken fixed term contract spanning the company's consolidation into the successor company, is a permanent employee and short of gross misconduct or mutual agreement, such a contract cannot be prematurely terminated. The citizenship of an employee and the need for a work permit is irrelevant in determining the genuineness or otherwise of a fixed term contract and where necessary, lifting the corporate veil of the employer is appropriate to identify or establish the true labour relationship between the parties. 
Ahmad Zahri Mirza Abdul Hamid v. AIMS Cyberjaya Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 557 [FC]

|

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Termination - Whether employee employed on permanent contract or fixed term contract - Former employer consolidated with present employer - Contract of employment renewed successively without application by employee and without intermittent break - Whether corporate veil ought to be lifted to show continuity of employment - Whether citizenship of employee deciding factor of nature of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20

CONTRACT: Termination - Validity - Employment contract - Whether employee employed on permanent contract or fixed term contract - Former employer consolidated with present employer - Contract of employment renewed successively without application by employee and without intermittent break - Whether corporate veil ought to be lifted to show continuity of employment - Whether both employers part and parcel of same group - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse

 

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
IDRUS HARUN FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ

  • For the appellant - Alex De Silva, VK Raj & Tan Yang Qian; M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva
  • For the respondent - Vijayan Venugopal & Jamie Goh Moon Hoong; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

The rights of a joint management body or a management corporation to collect and receive payment from a parcel proprietor under ss. 33 and 77 of the Strata Management Act 2013, respectively, does not give it a lawful preference as a secured creditor over the assets of a company in liquidation.
Dubon Bhd v. Wisma Cosway Management Corporation [2020] 6 CLJ 589 [FC]

| |

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Proceedings against company - Leave to proceed claim against company as proprietor - Application for - Management corporation claimed for outstanding sums due and owed by company - Whether management corporation entitled to recover from proprietor guaranteed sum - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 77

LAND LAW: Strata title - Management corporation - Claim for outstanding sums due and owed by company as proprietor - Whether management corporation entitled to recover from proprietor guaranteed sum under s. 77 of Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether there was mandatory obligation on proprietors to pay amount incurred by management corporation in course of exercise of carrying out duties - Whether proprietors must settle outstanding amount before selling or transferring properties

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Interpretation of Act - 'shall by virtue of this section be guaranteed by the proprietors' - Strata Management Act 2013, s. 77 - Whether there was mandatory obligation on proprietors to pay amount incurred by management corporation in course of exercise of carrying out duties - Whether proprietors must settle outstanding amount before selling or transferring of properties - Whether condition precedent in legal documents of transfer or sales of strata unit shares

AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
ROHANA YUSUF FCJ
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ

  • For the appellant - Andrew Teh & Tan Chong Pei; M/s Wong Lu Peen & Tunku Alina
  • For the respondent - Siva Balan & Goh Wan Ping; M/s Mastura Partnership

Dalam taksiran ganti rugi, dokumen-dokumen yang dirujuk hendaklah relevan dengan tuntutan. Dokumen-dokumen yang dijadikan sandaran dalam taksiran hendaklah jelas. Pihak-pihak yang membuat dokumen-dokumen ini juga semestinya dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan dan penjelasan terperinci agar tidak timbul pertikaian tentang cara pengiraan dan kesahan dokumen-dokumen dalam mencapai jumlah ganti rugi.
Integrated Training And Services Sdn Bhd lwn. Kerajaan Malaysia & Yang Lain [2020] 6 CLJ 605 [CA]

GANTI RUGI: Ganti rugi khas - Taksiran - Timbalan Pendaftar mentaksir ganti rugi berdasarkan laporan audit - Sama ada laporan audit teratur dan boleh dijadikan sandaran - Sama ada laporan audit muktamad - Sama ada pihak-pihak berkontrak terikat pada laporan audit - Sama ada taksiran ganti rugi berdasarkan laporan audit semata-mata melanggar prinsip perundangan taksiran ganti rugi - Sama ada juruaudit yang menyediakan laporan audit dipanggil memberi keterangan - Sama ada keputusan Timbalan Pendaftar wajar diketepikan

 

 

UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID HMR
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT HMR
SURAYA OTHMAN HMR

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Afifi Ahmad & Priscilla Chin; T/n Azrul Afifi & Azuan
  • Bagi pihak responden - Ahmad Terriruddin Mohd Salleh & Mariam Hasanah Othman; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan

A party wishing to give effect to an arbitration clause in an agreement must ensure the stay application is filed at the soonest possible time before taking any other steps in the proceedings that would indicate an intention to proceed with the litigation in court. The filing of pleadings prior to making an application for a stay of the proceedings under s. 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 clearly shows an intention to proceed with the trial.
Yeo Eng Lam v. Infinity Vantage Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 616 [CA]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceedings - Application for - Application for stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration - Whether applicant had taken 'any other steps in the proceedings' to disqualify her from applying for stay of proceedings under s. 10(1) of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether applicant had taken active steps to litigate matter in court of law prior to making application for stay - Whether steps taken by applicant made without express nor unequivocal reservation on rights to refer matter to arbitration - Whether applicant complied with prerequisite requirements under s. 10(1) of Arbitration Act 2005

ARBITRATION: Stay of proceedings - Principles - Application for stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration - Whether applicant had taken 'any other steps in the proceedings' to disqualify her from applying for stay of proceedings under s. 10(1) of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether applicant had taken active steps to litigate matter in court of law prior to making application for stay - Whether steps taken by applicant made without express nor unequivocal reservation on rights to refer matter to arbitration - Whether applicant complied with prerequisite requirements under s. 10(1) of Arbitration Act 2005

 

UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
STEPHEN CHUNG JCA

  • For the appellant - Anantha Krishnan; M/s Anantha Krishnan.
  • For the respondent - Arumugam Ganapathy & Kiranjeet Kaur Baldeep Singh; M/s Ghazi & Lim

The repeal of s. 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005 is to apply retrospectively to close the door to a s. 42 challenge in respect of any award published on or after 8 May 2018. This is line with the intention of Parliament that awards are to be final and are not to be re-opened via the 'widened' judicial door of error of law, thus inviting a multitude of awards in pending arbitration proceedings coming before the High Court.
AMDAC (M) Sdn Bhd v. BYD Auto Industry Company Ltd [2020] 6 CLJ 625 [HC]

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Application for - Application filed pursuant to ss. 37 and 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Repeal of s. 42 of Arbitration Act 2005 - Whether applied retrospectively or prospectively - Whether repeal occurred whilst arbitration between parties pending or ongoing - Whether parties no longer able to bring questions of law before High Court after award rendered - Whether applicant entitled to apply under s. 42 to challenge award - Whether court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain applicant's reference on questions of law under repealed s. 42

ARBITRATION:  Award - Setting aside - Application for - Dispute arising out of claim for payment - Whether arbitrator had jurisdiction over alleged dispute - Whether arbitrator acted unfairly in terminating applicant's counterclaim - Whether applicant able to present case effectively - Whether award dealt with dispute not contemplated or falling within submission to arbitration - Whether award contained decisions beyond scope of submission to arbitration - Whether there was breach of rules of natural justice - Whether award contained errors of law - Whether there were merits in applicant's complaint under s. 37 of Arbitration Act 2005

 

 

S NANTHA BALAN J

  • For the plaintiff - Shahabudin Shaik Alaudin & Rosnida Che Ibrahim; M/s Shahabudin & Rozima
  • For the defendant - Lavania Kumaraendran & Mavinthra Jothy Thillainathan; M/s Thomas Philip

In order to succeed in an action for minority oppression, it must be shown that there had been unfair discrimination against the shareholder. The deprivation of the right to object to a validation order of share buy-back transactions does not result in any material prejudice to a  shareholder's rights and if no substantive prejudice can be established from the facts of a case, a shareholder may not avail itself of the remedies under s. 356 of the Companies Act 2016.  If a majority of the shareholders have already approved a proposed business merger transaction, any objection by the minority shareholder should not frustrate the will of the majority.  
Concrete Parade Sdn Bhd v. Apex Equity Holdings Bhd & Ors [2020] 6 CLJ 684 [HC]

|

COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Oppression of minority - Conduct amounting to oppression - Allegation of - Company's acts of seeking and obtaining order of High Court to validate prior share buy-back transaction without giving adequate notice to shareholders - Whether amounted to act of oppression - Whether private placement exercise contravened shareholder's rights of pre-emption under s. 85 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether dilutive effects of private placement oppressive of shareholder's rights - Whether there was contravention of s. 223 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether shareholder demonstrated any prejudice to its rights to avail itself of remedies under s. 346 of Companies Act 2016

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons - Oppression suit - Oppression of minority - Conduct amounting to oppression - Allegation of - Company's acts of seeking and obtaining order of High Court to validate prior share buy-back transaction without giving adequate notice to shareholders - Whether amounted to act of oppression - Whether private placement exercise contravened shareholder's rights of pre-emption under s. 85 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether dilutive effects of private placement oppressive of shareholder's rights - Whether there was contravention of s. 223 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether shareholder demonstrated any prejudice to its rights to avail itself of remedies under s. 346 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether originating summons ought to be dismissed

 

AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN J

  • For the plaintiff - Robert Lazar, Alvin Tang & Khor Heng How; M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva
  • For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Mak Lin Kum, Himahlini Ramalingam, Mohamed Izzul Faris & Lee Shiow Chi; M/s Himahlini & Loh
  • For the 3rd to 5th defendants - Kennie Ang & Darren Lai; M/s Ivan Ang Lau & Xuen
  • For the 6th & 7th defendants - Ong Jian Ne; M/s Kadir, Andri & Partners
  • For the 8th defendant - Richard WG Lee, Shiyamala Devi Manokaran & Soon Jia Yee; M/s Jeff Leong, Poon & Wong
  • For the 9th & 12th defendants - Shim De Zhen; M/s De Zhen
  • For the 10th defendant - Yuvaraj Sugapathy; M/s Sugapathy & Partners
  • For the 11th defendant - Tan Eng Keat; M/s Gan, Lee & Tan
  • For the 13th defendant - Sharon Lim; M/s JH Yee & Co
  • For the 14th defendant - K Dalveena; M/s Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah
  • For the 15th defendant - Jasvinder Singh; M/s Asyraf, Vivek & Wee
  • For the 16th defendant - Philip Ryan Mathew & Jeannie Chong; M/s Philip Mathew

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. PAYMENT OF "WAGES FOR WORK DONE": A TALE OF TWO APPROACHES [Read excerpt]
    by John Mark* [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxvi

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

    PAYMENT OF "WAGES FOR WORK DONE": A TALE OF TWO APPROACHES

    by
    John Mark*

    Introduction

    Payment of salary is an integral part of an employment contract for the employee while for the employer the employee is required to duly perform his job. In a normal situation an employee works and gets paid for the work done. Essentially, Section 2 of the Employment Act 1955 says that wages are paid for “work done”. A unique situation arises when an employee is willing to work but the employer is unable to provide work temporarily due to an external factor which is not theemployer’s fault for example a major flood, the spread of infectious disease, riots, “Movement Control”(MCO), lockdown or curfews imposed by the government. The question arises whether the employer is obliged to pay salary or wages during such period. It appears that the answer to this conundrum is rather unclear. It is possible that this issue would be decided differently depending where it ends up, whether at the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, due to the fact that these “courts” interpret respective statutes; that is, the Employment Act 1955 and the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

    . . .

    *LL.B (Hons), Industrial and Employment Law Practitioner.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. CYBER PROTECTION ADVISING CLIENTS ON CYBER RISK INSURANCE* [Read excerpt]
    by AMY BURNS** [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxxvii

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

    CYBER PROTECTION
    ADVISING CLIENTS ON CYBER RISK INSURANCE*


    by
    AMY BURNS**

    Cyber incidents continue to be an increasing area of risk for organisations, and for lawyers it presents an opportunity to provide practical advice in an ever-changing landscape.

    Cyber incidents have been a focus of national headlines over the last decade. Organisations regard electronically stored data as both an indispensable asset, and an area of growing risk and potential liability.

    To address this surge in cyber incidents and cyber-related crime, insurance companies have been quick to formulate insurance policies. These policies are designed to protect organisations from third party claims against their business, and first-hand business expenses such as the costs of repairing and restoring systems.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos Autumn 2020, Issue 255.

    ** Senior Legal Officer for the Australian Government, specialising in commercial law covering Information and Communications Technology. She has a wealth of experience advising clients across government agencies on complex commercial matters.


    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 31 March 2020 [PU(B) 166/2020] -
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) 203/2020 Prevention And Control Of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 7) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 14 July 2020 15 July 2020 PU(A) 181/2020
PU(A) 202/2020 Customs Duties (Goods Under The Framework Agreement On Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Among The Government Of The Member States Of The Asean And The Republic Of Korea) Order 2020 13 July 2020 1 August 2020 ACT 235
PU(A) 201/2020 Ministers Of The Federal Government (No. 3) Order 2020 9 July 2020 See paragraph 1(2) of this Order ACT 2
PU(A) 200/2020 Printing Presses And Publications (Control Of Undesirable Publications) Order 2020 1 July 2020 2 July 2020 ACT 301
PU(A) 199/2020 Co-Operative Societies (Assumption Of Control Of Koperasi Peneroka Felda Kemahang (1) Berhad) (Reappointment) Order 2020 1 July 2020 2 July 2020 ACT 502

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 334/2020 Notice Of Impending Termination Of The Imposition Of Anti-Dumping Duties On Imports Of Prepainted, Painted Or Colour Coated Steel Coils Originating Or Exported From The People's Republic Of China And The Socialist Republic Of Viet Nam 21 July 2020 22 July 2020 PU(A) 233/1994
PU(B) 333/2020 Appointment And Revocation Of Appointment Of Registrar For Persons With Disabilities 21 July 2020 15 May 2020 ACT 685
PU(B) 332/2020 Appointment Under Subsection 6A(1A) 20 July 2020 1 May 2020 ACT 533
PU(B) 331/2020 Notice Of Proposal For Alteration Of Local Plan For The Federal Territory Of Kuala Lumpur 17 July 2020 18 July 2020 ACT 267
PU(B) 330/2020 Notification Of Values Of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 16 July 2020 1 August 2020 to 31 August 2020 ACT 235

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 181/2020 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 7) Regulations 2020 PU(A) 203/2020 15 July 2020 Schedule
PU(A) 181/2020 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 7) 2020 PU(A) 203/2020 15 Julai 2020 Jadual
PU(A) 305/2017 Kaedah-Kaedah Insolvensi 2017 PU(A) 198/2020 1 Julai 2020 Kaedah 248
PU(A) 305/2017 Insolvency Rules 2017 PU(A) 198/2020 1 July 2020 Rule 248
PU(A) 203/2018 Sales Tax Regulations 2018 PU(A) 196/2020 1 July 2020 New Part IXA

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 286/2015 Customs Duties (Goods Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Among the Governments of the Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Republic of Korea) (Asean Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature) Order 2015 PU(A) 202/2020 1 August 2020
PU(A) 84/2020 Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2020 PU(A) 201/2020 See paragraph 1(2) of this Order
PU(A) 476/2008 Customs Duties (Goods Under Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership Among Member States of the Asean and Japan) Order 2008 [Revoked By PU(A) 191/2020] PU(A) 191/2020 1 July 2020
PU(B) 112/2019 Appointment of Member of the Authority PU(B) 279/2020 1 June 2020 to 31 May 2022
PU(A) 64/2020 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Runcit Maksimum Bagi Petrol Dan Diesel) (No. 8) 2020 [Dibatalkan Oleh PU(A) 178/2020] PU(A) 178/2020 4 Jun 2020