|
Issue #44/2020
22 October 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
|
LAI KING LUNG & ANOR v. MERAIS SDN BHD [2020] 9 CLJ 449
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-4-01-2019(B)]
20 JULY 2020
An official receiver or a liquidator of a wound-up company does not have the power nor the authority to grant any sanction retrospectively to the company under receivership or liquidation to proceed with any litigation; a wound up company is thus not clothed with the necessary locus standi to proceed with an appeal or a proceeding without nunc pro tunc leave having first been obtained from the court.
COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Liquidator - Sanction of - Notice of appeal - Whether liquidator's sanction deemed to have been given on date of filing of notice of appeal - Whether liquidator had statutory power to grant retrospective sanction - Whether plaintiff clothed with locus standi to proceed with appeal without leave nunc pro tunc obtained from court - Whether notice of appeal bad in law and of no legal effect
COMPANY LAW: Liquidation - Company wound-up - Appointment of liquidator - Notice of appeal by wound-up company - Whether wound-up company must obtain consent or sanction of liquidator before filing of notice of appeal - Whether liquidator authorised to grant sanction retrospectively - Whether plaintiff clothed with locus standi to proceed with appeal without leave nunc pro tunc obtained from court - Whether notice of appeal bad in law and of no legal effect
RAJENDIRAN MANICKAM & ANOR v. PALMAMIDE SDN BHD & ANOR [2020] 9 CLJ 510
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA; KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; LEE SWEE SENG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-04(IM)(C)-82-02-2019]
07 JULY 2020
An employee who is injured in the course of his employment in a workplace may, after filing a claim under the Employees Social Security Act 1969, file another claim under common law against the employer under the tort of negligence, breach of statutory duties or occupier's liability as the case may be in respect of the injury suffered. An employee's claim for damages for such tortious acts, even when inextricably linked to the issue of whether the employee could as well pursue a claim for aggravated and exemplary damages for gross negligence against the employer, ought not to be struck out in limine or summarily under O. 18 r. 19 Rules of Court 2012. Aggravated damages may be awarded in a case where there is aggravating conduct or circumstances in the negligent act committed by an employer, such as where it resulted in the employer profiting at the expense of the safety of its employee, and a claim for same, therefore, cannot be said to be so obviously unsustainable as to attract the invocation of the summary striking out provision.
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Compensation - Claim for - Employees sustained injuries as result of explosion and fire resulting from welding works done in employers' factory - Employees claimed damages for negligence, breach of statutory duties and occupiers' liability - Whether employee injured in course of employment in workplace accident could claim under Employees' Social Security Act 1969 and thereafter bring further claim under common law - Whether issues that arose should be fully argued at trial - Whether employees' claims a non-starter - Whether employees' claims weak justifying suit to be struck out in limine
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Appeal against - Claim for compensation - Employees sustained injuries as result of explosion and fire resulting from welding works done in employers' factory - Employees claimed damages for negligence, breach of statutory duties and occupiers' liability - Whether employee injured in course of employment in workplace accident could claim under Employees' Social Security Act 1969 and thereafter bring further claim under common law - Whether issues that arose should be fully argued at trial - Whether employees' claims a non-starter - Whether employees' claims weak justifying suit to be struck out in limine
-
KAB Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Impiana Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 975 (CA) overruling in part the High Court case of Master Platform Sdn Bhd v. KAB Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor [Rayuan Sivil No. WA-12ANCVC-60-04/2016].
-
Joseph Subramaniam v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1420 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Joseph Subramaniam [2018] 1 LNS 1039.
Legal Network Series
|
MOHAMMAD AWARI AHMAD lwn. PP 1. Perbuatan menghiris bahagian leher simati sebanyak dua kali jelas menunjukkan niat tertuduh untuk membunuh si mati atau mengetahui bahawa perbuatannya itu akan mendatangkan kecederaan yang pada lazimnya boleh membawa kepada kematian si mati menurut s. 300 (a) dan (c) Kanun Keseksaan. 2. Nota pernyataan nazak yang dibuat oleh si mati adalah relevan dan boleh diterima sebagai keterangan untuk menyokong pertuduhan bunuh walaupun pernyataan nazak tidak menyebut perkataan 'membunuh' memandangkan pernyataan tersebut adalah berkaitan dengan identiti pelaku serta keadaan yang berlaku sehingga membawa kepada kematian si mati. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Leher si mati dikelar dua kali oleh tertuduh menggunakan golok - Tertuduh mendakwa niatnya adalah untuk merompak dan merogol si mati sahaja dan bukan untuk membunuh - Sama ada kecederaan yang dialami oleh si mati yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh adalah secara sengaja dan penuh kesedaran - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai niat untuk membunuh si mati KETERANGAN: Pernyataan nazak - Kebolehterimaan - Si mati sempat menulis nota pernyataan nazak - Pertuduhan bunuh - Pernyataan nazak tidak menyebut perkataan 'membunuh' - Sama ada munasabah untuk si mati menulis perkataan 'membunuh' apabila si mati masih hidup ketika pernyataan nazak di buat - Sama ada pernyataan nazak relevan dan boleh diterima sebagai keterangan di bawah s. 32(1)(a) dan (i) Akta Keterangan 1950
|
|
|
NIK RUSDI NIK SALLEH lwn. SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SDN BHD Keuntungan nominal adalah memadai dan munasabah apabila tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan jumlah kerugian keuntungan sebenar yang dialami oleh pemegang lesen ekoran daripada penamatan salah kontrak lesen oleh pemberi lesen. Sesuatu bayaran ganti rugi seharusnya tidak melebihi dari tempoh kontrak yang dimasuki oleh pihak-pihak. GANTI RUGI: Taksiran - Kerugian keuntungan - Penamatan salah kontrak lesen runcit minyak petrol - Penamatan sebelum tempoh luput kontrak tamat - Tuntutan oleh pemegang lesen untuk kerugian keuntungan jualan minyak - Sama ada penyata akaun yang tidak diaudit boleh diterima bagi tujuan taksiran - Sama ada keuntungan sebenar telah dibuktikan - Sama ada pemegang lesen telah mengalami kerugian akibat daripada penamatan salah - Sama ada jumlah keuntungan nominal sahaja wajar diberikan apabila tiada keterangan berkenaan kerugian sebenar - Sama ada bayaran ganti rugi boleh melebihi tempoh kontrak yang dimasuki pihak-pihak - Sama ada ganti rugi boleh melebihi tempoh kontrak yang dimasuki
|
|
|
AZRA AHMAD ROSLI lwn. PP Tertuduh tidak mendapat perbicaraan yang adil apabila tertuduh tidak diwakili oleh peguam ketika mitigasi tertuduh dikemukakan di Mahkamah. Dalam menentukan suatu hukuman, kepentingan tertuduh tidak wajar diketepikan secara langsung. Justeru Mahkamah perlu menjalankan satu kaedah pengimbangan untuk memastikan keadilan dilaksanakan kepada mangsa dan juga tertuduh. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Mencuri - Keadilan kepada tertuduh - Pengakuan bersalah - Mitigasi - Tertuduh tidak diwakili ketika dituduh di Mahkamah - Sama ada tertuduh telah menjalani perbicaraan yang adil tanpa peguam - Sama ada Mahkamah berupaya menghayati hujahan mitigasi daripada peguambela berbanding dengan hujahan mitigasi daripada tertuduh sendiri - Sama ada pengakuan bersalah, kesalahan pertama tertuduh, penyesalan dan keinsafan, usia muda tertuduh dan kemiskinan merupakan faktor mitigasi yang perlu dipertimbangkan - Sama ada kepentingan tertuduh wajar diketepikan langsung
|
|
|
SHAHANOM UTHMAN v. PP 1. The presumption under s. 50 of Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission Act 2009 may be invoked against an accused who corruptly solicited and accepted gratification in cash and in kind from buyers as a reward for giving discounts for unprocessed copper supplied by his principal which was beyond his authority and contrary to the principal's policy. 2. Sentences imposing a fine must be reflective of the financial means of the accused. The imposition of an additional 26 years imprisonment as a default sentence despite the sentence of 6 years imprisonment is manifestly excessive and would give an impression that the accused is being persecuted. CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption - Corruptly accepting gratification - Corruptly soliciting gratification - Gratification in cash and in kind - Cash and BMW car received by accused as a reward for discount of unprocessed copper supplied by principal of accused - Whether there was sufficient evidence that the money and car were received by accused as a reward for discount of unprocessed copper - Whether accused received gratification corruptly as inducement to do an act in connection with affairs of his principal - Whether presence of accused required during transfer of car to accused - Whether presumption under s. 50 of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 had been properly and correctly invoked CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Corruption - Fine - Default sentence - Accused convicted on 8 charges of corruption and sentenced to imprisonment of 6 years concurrently, and fines totaling RM 5.4 million in default, 26 years imprisonment - Whether sentence meted out was manifestly excessive - Whether default sentence was excessive - Whether would give the impression that accused is being persecuted - Whether trial judge should have anticipated possibility that accused could not pay fines - Whether imposition of fine must be reflective of the financial means of accused
|
|
|
MERCK KGAA v. XTALIC CORPORATION For purposes of opposing registration of trade marks, the probable effect of normal and fair use would be assessed based on the likelihood of deception or confusion if the mark sought for registration is used in relation to the same or similar goods in that class of registration generally. Mere registration of trade marks for goods in the same class would not create any real tangible danger of deception or confusion to the consumers if they co-exist together. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Registration - Opposition to registration - Defendant intended to register mark 'XTALIC' - Plaintiff being registered proprietor of trade mark 'XIRALLIC' - Goods registered under same class - Whether 'first use' principle is only relevant if marks in issue are confusingly similar - Whether determination of deception or confusion for purposes of ss. 14 & 19 of Trade Marks Act 1976 should be that of probable effects of normal and fair use - Whether defendant's mark was highly and conceptually similar to plaintiff's mark - Whether it was probable that consumer would consider defendant's mark as an extension or variant of plaintiff's mark - Whether there would be real tangible danger of deception or confusion if marks are registered and co-exist together
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 9 (Part 4)
An official receiver or a liquidator of a wound-up company does not have the power nor the authority to grant any sanction retrospectively to the company under receivership or liquidation to proceed with any litigation; a wound up company is thus not clothed with the necessary locus standi to proceed with an appeal or a proceeding without nunc pro tunc leave having first been obtained from the court.
Lai King Lung & Anor v. Merais Sdn Bhd [2020] 9 CLJ 449 [FC]
COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Liquidator - Sanction of - Notice of appeal - Whether liquidator's sanction deemed to have been given on date of filing of notice of appeal - Whether liquidator had statutory power to grant retrospective sanction - Whether plaintiff clothed with locus standi to proceed with appeal without leave nunc pro tunc obtained from court - Whether notice of appeal bad in law and of no legal effect
COMPANY LAW: Liquidation - Company wound-up - Appointment of liquidator - Notice of appeal by wound-up company - Whether wound-up company must obtain consent or sanction of liquidator before filing of notice of appeal - Whether liquidator authorised to grant sanction retrospectively - Whether plaintiff clothed with locus standi to proceed with appeal without leave nunc pro tunc obtained from court - Whether notice of appeal bad in law and of no legal effect
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
- For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Justin Voon, Chiam Jia Yann & Marcus Lee; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
- For the respondent - Gabriel Daniel & Melissa Chan Shyuk Wern; M/s Paul Ong & Assocs
An arbitrator who is a professional engineer and well-versed and knowledgeable in the construction industry, in relying on his own knowledge and expertise of the construction industry in arriving at a decision on the quantum of 'loss of profit' of a construction company pursuant to s. 21(3) of the Arbitration Act 2005 which allows an arbitrator to draw on his own knowledge and expertise, cannot not be said to be in breach of the rules of natural justice within the meaning of s. 37(1)(b)(ii) read together with s. 37(2)(b) of the Act.
Pancaran Prima Sdn Bhd v. Iswarabena Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 9 CLJ 466 [FC]
ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Termination of subcontract - Dispute referred to arbitration - Arbitrator ruled that termination unlawful and ordered payment of costs for completed works and loss of profit - Arbitrator drew from own knowledge and expertise in arriving at decision - Whether arbitrator, an engineer knowledgeable in construction industry, could rely on own knowledge and expertise in arriving at findings - Whether arbitrator in breach of rules of natural justice or exceeded jurisdiction in arriving at decision - Whether arbitration award ought to be set aside - Threshold requirement to set aside award - Whether 'very low' - Whether arbitration award ought to be enforced - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 37 & 42
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
- For the appellant - Robert Lazar, Felix Dorairaj & Annette Rachel Edwin; M/s Dorairaj Low & Teh
- For the respondent - Nitin Nadkarni, Foo Joon Liang, Crystal Wong Wai Chin, Lee Xin Div, Lee Zhe Ying & Teh Wai Fung; M/s Gan Partnership
An employee who is injured in the course of his employment in a workplace may, after filing a claim under the Employees Social Security Act 1969, file another claim under common law against the employer under the tort of negligence, breach of statutory duties or occupier's liability as the case may be in respect of the injury suffered. An employee's claim for damages for such tortious acts, even when inextricably linked to the issue of whether the employee could as well pursue a claim for aggravated and exemplary damages for gross negligence against the employer, ought not to be struck out in limine or summarily under O. 18 r. 19 Rules of Court 2012. Aggravated damages may be awarded in a case where there is aggravating conduct or circumstances in the negligent act committed by an employer, such as where it resulted in the employer profiting at the expense of the safety of its employee, and a claim for same, therefore, cannot be said to be so obviously unsustainable as to attract the invocation of the summary striking out provision.
Rajendiran Manickam & Anor v. Palmamide Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 9 CLJ 510 [CA]
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Compensation - Claim for - Employees sustained injuries as result of explosion and fire resulting from welding works done in employers' factory - Employees claimed damages for negligence, breach of statutory duties and occupiers' liability - Whether employee injured in course of employment in workplace accident could claim under Employees' Social Security Act 1969 and thereafter bring further claim under common law - Whether issues that arose should be fully argued at trial - Whether employees' claims a non-starter - Whether employees' claims weak justifying suit to be struck out in limine
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Appeal against - Claim for compensation - Employees sustained injuries as result of explosion and fire resulting from welding works done in employers' factory - Employees claimed damages for negligence, breach of statutory duties and occupiers' liability - Whether employee injured in course of employment in workplace accident could claim under Employees' Social Security Act 1969 and thereafter bring further claim under common law - Whether issues that arose should be fully argued at trial - Whether employees' claims a non-starter - Whether employees' claims weak justifying suit to be struck out in limine
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA
- For the appellants - T Manoharan & Nik Muhammad Shafiq; M/s Ong & Partners
- For the respondents - Alvin Julian & Wong Hui Ling; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co
(1) As a public decision-making body, the Director General of Customs and Excise has a duty to give reasons for its decision in rejecting an applicant's application for special refund of sales tax for goods held on hand pursuant to s. 190 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 ('GST Act'). The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration, as it inculcates transparency and accountability in public decision-making bodies. The absence of specific provisions in the GST Act which requires the Director General to give reasons for its decision could not be interpreted to mean that no reasons need be given.
(2) When evidence adduced demonstrates that the applicant had fulfilled the requirements of ss. 190 and 191 of the GST Act, and there was no challenge to the accuracy, the application for special refund of sales tax for goods ought to be allowed.
Uniqlo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Kastam Dan Eksais [2020] 9 CLJ 521 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Director General of Customs and Excise ('DG') in rejecting applicant's application for special refund of sales tax for goods held on hand - Whether applicant fulfilled all requirements of ss. 190(1) & 191(2)(b) of Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 - Whether DG had legal duty to give reasons for its decision to reject applicant's special refund application - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(1)
REVENUE LAW: Goods and services tax - Special refund of sales tax for goods - Application for - Director General of Customs and Excise ('DG') rejected applicant's application for special refund of sales tax for goods held on hand - Whether applicant fulfilled all requirements of ss. 190(1) & 191(2)(b) of Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 - Whether DG had legal duty to give reasons for its decision to reject applicant's special refund application
BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
- For the appellant - Mohd Arief Emran Arifin & Kellie Yap; M/s Wong & Partners
- For the respondent - Farah Ezlin Yusop Khan & Syamimi Farhana Muhammad A Aziz; SFCs
An administrator of an estate owes fiduciary duties to the estate's beneficiaries to (i) safeguard their rights and interests; (ii) act with proper prudence when dealing with the said estate property; (iii) obtain the best possible price for the assets of the estate that are being sold; and (iv) distribute the proceeds of the estate among the beneficiaries. Selling off an estate for a price not favourable to the beneficiaries amounts to a breach of fiduciary and statutory duties and could possibly render the sale of the said estate voidable.
Visaladchumy Narayanan & Ors v. Representative Of The Estate Of Haridas Narayanan, (Deceased) & Ors [2020] 9 CLJ 541 [CA]
LAND LAW: Administration - Sale of land - Owner of plots of land died intestate - Administrator obtained order for sale of plots at specific value but sold plots at lower value - Whether administrator owed statutory and fiduciary duties to beneficiaries - Whether sale of land ought to be set aside - Whether sale null and void - Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955, s. 17
LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title - Sale of land - Owner of plots of land died intestate - Administrator obtained order for sale of plots at specific value but sold plots at lower value - Whether purchasers bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration - Whether immediate purchasers - Whether indefeasibility attached to purchasers' titles - Whether sale of plots of land liable to be set aside - Whether titles acquired pursuant to void instrument - Whether titles conferred on purchasers should be revoked - National Land Code, s. 340(2)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Statement of claim - Amendment - Application to amend amended statement of claim - Whether filed within stipulated time - Whether amendment ought to be allowed
ZALEHA YUSOF JCA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
LAU BEE LAN JCA
- For the appellants - Alex De Silva, Shamalah Selvarajah & Saresh Mahendaren; M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva
- For the respondents - Ahmad Fakhri Abu Samah, Muhammad Azwar Ab Manab & Nuurul Atila Mohamad Hanapi; M/s Ahmad Sukeri & Assocs
(i) The court needs to be cautious where leave is sought for service out of jurisdiction involving a sovereign State as such service is an interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign power of the State. It is trite that a party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction for the purpose of serving its cause papers out of jurisdiction ought to make a full and fair disclosure of the relevant facts to the court, a fortiori when such application is made on an ex-parte basis. In the present case, since there were no averments made by the plaintiff that service of the cause papers that was effected on the defendants in Saudi Arabia was in accordance with and not contrary to the laws of Saudi Arabia, the service of such cause papers cannot be said to have been duly effected; the service effected was flawed and ought to be set aside.
(ii) A party to an agreement that contains an arbitration clause is obliged to refer a dispute to arbitration, especially when it is made clear by a true construction of the arbitration clause that in the event the parties failed to settle a controversy or claim, the parties had consented to resolve the said dispute by way of arbitration. The approach of the court with regards to an arbitration agreement is to hold the parties to their voluntary consensus to arbitrate their dispute especially so when the agreement to arbitrate is clear beyond dispute.
Koperasi Permodalan Felda Malaysia Bhd v. Al Rawda Investment For Real Estate Development & Projects Management Co Ltd & Anor [2020] 9 CLJ 571 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside - Application for - Application to set aside ex parte order for leave to serve notice of writ to be served out of jurisdiction, writ of summons and statement of claim - Whether cause papers effected on defendants in accordance with and not contrary to law of Saudi Arabia - Whether service of cause papers duly effected - Whether there was non-disclosure of arbitration agreement clause when making application for leave to serve writ outside of jurisdiction - Whether ex parte order ought to be set aside
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Service - Service out of jurisdiction - Ex parte order for leave to serve notice of writ to be served out of jurisdiction, writ of summons and statement of claim - Application to set aside - Whether cause papers effected on defendants in accordance with and not contrary to law of Saudi Arabia - Whether service of cause papers duly effected - Whether service ought to be set aside - Rules of Court 2012, O. 11 r. 5(1), (2), & (3) & O. 11 r. 6(2)
ARBITRATION: Contract - Disputes - Whether agreements contained arbitration clause - Whether court right forum to hear dispute between parties - Whether there was non-disclosure of arbitration agreement clause when making application for leave to serve writ outside of jurisdiction - Whether submission to court jurisdiction clause in agreement negated arbitration agreement clause - Whether there was dispute between parties in context of arbitration agreement clause - Whether arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed - Whether dispute ought to be referred to arbitration - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 10 & 11
KHADIJAH IDRIS J
- For the plaintiff - Sachpal Singh; Teng Weng Loong; M/s Radzi Sheikh Ahmad & Sachpal
- For the defendants - Chetan Jethwani & Leonard D'Cruz; M/s Paul Cheah Assoc
LNS Article(s)
MIGRANTS AND THE LAW [Read excerpt]
by Dato' Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxiiiIS COVID-19 OR THE MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER ("MCO") A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT IN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS? [Read excerpt]
by Balan Nair Thamodaran* Naveen Sri Kantha** [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxivANALYSIS ON WOMEN'S ACCESS TO FINANCE DURING AND AFTER MARRIAGE [Read excerpt]
by Nur Syakirah Binti Mohd Adnan* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxvREFLECTIONS ON THE RECENT HIGH COURT DECISION IN LOVE: THE CONSTITUTION, INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, AND IMMIGRATION LAW* [Read excerpt]
by Kate Slack**
Arron Hartnett [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxii
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 Force | ACT 527 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 279/2020 | Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) (No. 3) (Amendment) Order 2020 | 28 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | PU(A) 199/2016 |
| PU(A) 278/2020 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Pembiayaan Syariah Angkasa Berhad) (Appointment) Order 2020 | 25 September 2020 | 26 September 2020 | ACT 502 |
| PU(A) 277/2020 | Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia (Rate of Levy) Order 2020 | 24 September 2020 | 1 January 2020 and shall continue to be in operation for the period until 31 December 2021 | ACT 520 |
| PU(A) 276/2020 | Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) (Remission of Tax and Stamp Duty) (No. 5) Order 2020 | 24 September 2020 | 25 September 2020 | ACT 96 |
| PU(A) 275/2020 | Federal Roads (Felda Scheme) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 | 24 September 2020 | 28 September 2020 | PU(A) 449/1991 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 462/2020 | Notice of Initiation of Safeguard Investigation For A Preliminary Determination With Regard To Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles Products Imported Into Malaysia | 11 September 2020 | 12 September 2020 | ACT 657 |
| PU(B) 461/2020 | Declaration of Quarantine Stations (No. 15) 2020 | 11 September 2020 | 12 September 2020 | ACT 342 |
| PU(B) 460/2020 | Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 | 11 September 2020 | 11 September 2020 to 24 September 2020 | ACT 235 |
| PU(B) 459/2020 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Registrar For Persons With Disabilities | 10 September 2020 | 1 July 2020 | ACT 685 |
| PU(B) 458/2020 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation of Rent of Parcel Or Provisional Block | 10 September 2020 | 11 September 2020 | ACT 318 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 254/2020 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 8) 2020 | PU(A) 297/2020 | 7 Oktober 2020 | Peraturan 3A dan 4B |
| PU(A) 327/1993 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Pengkompaunan Kesalahan-Kesalahan) 1993 | PU(A) 301/2020 | 14 Oktober 2020 | Jadual Pertama |
| AKTA 452 | Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja (Pindaan) 2019 | AKTA A1611 | 15 Mac 2020 [PU(B) 158/2020] kecuali s. 6, 8 dan 11; 1 Oktober 2020 [PU(B) 468/2020] - s. 6, 8 dan 11 | Seksyen 39, 53C - 53F dan Jadual Kelapan |
| AKTA 789 | Akta Keselamatan Sosial Pekerjaan Sendiri 2017 | PU(A) 294/2020 | 7 Oktober 2020 | Jadual Pertama |
| PU(A) 254/2020 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 8) 2020 | PU(A) 292/2020 | 3 Oktober 2020 | Peraturan 4A |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(A) 97/2020 | Motor Vehicles (Exemption) Rules 2020 | PU(A) 251/2020 | 1 September 2020 |
| PU(A) 248/1998 | Rubber Industry (Replanting) Fund (Cess on Rubber Sold to Manufacturers) Order 1998 | PU(A) 232/2020 | 1 October 2020 - Peninsular Malaysia only |
| PU(B) 663/2018 | Appointment of Member of the Advisory Board | PU(B) 388/2020 | 10 August 2020 until 9 August 2022 |
| PU(B) 140/2020 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Director General of the Board | PU(B) 373/2020 | 1 June 2020 |
| PU(A) 211/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Medical Attendance and Maintenance of Person Removed to Quarantine Station) Regulations 2020 | PU(A) 233/2020 | 24 July 2020 |