|
Issue #47/2020
12 November 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
|
NG HOO KUI & ANOR v.
WENDY TAN LEE PENG, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATES OF TAN EWE KWANG, DECEASED & ORS [2020] 10 CLJ 1
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(f)-60-07-2019(P)]
24 SEPTEMBER 2020
The law is clear in that the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is 'the plainly wrong test' principle. The principle encompasses differing and multiple circumstances, but must necessarily apply, inter alia, to situations where it can be shown that the impugned decision is vitiated with plain material errors, or where crucial evidence had been misconstrued, or where the trial judge had so manifestly not taken proper advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses or not properly analysed the entirety of the evidence before him, or where a decision was arrived at without adequate judicial appreciation of the evidence such as to make it rationally unsupportable. This said, the criterion that is central to appellate intervention must remain that deference to the trier of fact is still the rule and not the exception; and the plainly wrong test ought not to be used by the appellate court as a means to substitute the impugned decision with its own.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appellate intervention - Reversal of High Court decision by Court of Appeal - Application of 'plainly wrong' test - Whether appellate intervention justified in event of lack of judicial appreciation of evidence - Whether conclusions on primary facts by trial judge plainly wrong - Whether evidence justified conclusions at trial - Whether Court of Appeal found decision of trial judge plainly wrong - Whether intervention of Court of Appeal warranted
TRUSTS: Constructive trust - Existence of a trust - Acquisition of shares by defendants from monies paid by plaintiff - Obligations under equity - Whether defendant held shares for benefit of plaintiffs - Whether defendants proved contribution for acquisition of shares - Whether defendants obtained shares as a result of dishonest, unconscionable and inequitable conduct - Whether constructive trust created
TETUAN SULAIMAN & TAYE v. WONG POH KUN & ANOR [2020] 10 CLJ 121
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
[SUIT NO: WA-22NCC-364-08-2018]
08 JULY 2020
In the absence of any satisfactory explanation as to the dissipation of company's monies, the directors of a wound-up company, being the mandatory signatories of the company's bank accounts and having direct and personal knowledge of the dealings of the company, can be considered delinquent in their duties and having the intention to defraud the creditors of the company. That being the case, they may be held personally responsible for any liabilities of the company pursuant to s. 540(1) of the Companies Act 2016.
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Liabilities - Default by company in payment for legal services rendered - Company wound up - Whether directors liable - Whether directors carried out business with intent to defraud creditors of company - Whether company's monies dissipated by directors with intent to benefit themselves - Whether directors personally liable for debts - Companies Act 2016, s. 540
-
Dr Mansur Hussain & Ors v. Barisan Tenaga Perancang (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 661 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Barisan Tenaga Perancang (M) Sdn Bhd v. Dr Mansur Hussain & Ors [2016] 1 LNS 1723
-
Orange Business Services (Network) Sdn Bhd v. Dealtel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd And Another Appeal [2019] 1 LNS 771 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Orange Business Services (Network) Sdn Bhd v. Dealtel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [Civil Suit No: WA - 24NCVC - 414 - 08/2017]
Legal Network Series
|
SYARIKAT BEKALAN AIR SELANGOR SDN BHD lwn. HIZATUL ISHAM ABDUL JALIL & YANG LAIN Tuntutan yang berasaskan saman fitnah adalah tidak mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah apabila artikel-artikel yang dikarang oleh defendan yang menjadi subjek perkara saman fitnah tersebut tidak merujuk kepada plaintif secara spesifik atau berupaya membawa maksud memfitnah plaintif. Tuntutan plaintif adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah apabila plaintif hanya memilih untuk memulakan tindakan saman fitnah terhadap defendan sahaja berkenaan isu krisis air walaupun terdapat beberapa pihak lain yang menyuarakan pendapat berkenaan isu yang sama. PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Saman fitnah - Tindakan terhadap pengarang dan penerbit beberapa artikel - Artikel menyuarakan pandangan dan komen yang kritikal berkenaan krisis air di Negeri Selangor - Sama ada artikel-artikel merujuk kepada plaintif secara spesifik dan berupaya membawa maksud memfitnah plaintif - Sama ada plaintif adalah pihak yang bertanggungjawab kepada krisis air - Sama ada plaintif merupakan satu-satunya entiti yang membekalkan air kepada Negeri Selangor - Sama ada tindakan plaintif telah mendedahkan sebarang kausa tindakan yang munasabah dan boleh dipertahankan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Saman fitnah - Penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah - Tindakan difailkan terhadap pengarang dan penerbit artikel yang mempertikaikan pentadbiran negeri - Tindakan tidak difailkan terhadap beberapa pihak lain yang menyuarakan pendapat berkenaan isu yang sama - Plaintif hanya memilih untuk memulakan tindakan saman fitnah terhadap defendan sahaja - Sama ada tindakan plaintif adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah
|
|
|
SUAYRI AYYAPAN lwn. PP Apabila kehadiran, peranan dan penglibatan saksi-saksi yang dicadangkan tertuduh yang berada di tempat kejadian adalah tidak jelas, maka kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk menawarkan saksi-saksi atau mengemukakan rakaman percakapan saksi-saksi tersebut kepada pihak pembelaan tidak akan memberi anggapan yang bertentangan kepada pihak pendakwaan, menjejaskan kes pendakwaan dan memprasangka pembelaan tertuduh. PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes pendakwaan - Kesalahan ugutan jenayah - Tertuduh mendakwa pihak pendakwaan gagal menawarkan atau mengemukakan rakaman percakapan saksi-saksi yang konnonya berada di tempat kejadian kepada pembelaan - Penglibatan dan kehadiran saksi-saksi tidak jelas - Sama ada saksi-saksi yang sedia ada cukup untuk menyokong keterangan mangsa - Sama ada ketiadaan saksi-saksi yang dinamakan tertuduh telah memprejudiskan tertuduh untuk menyediakan pembelaan - Sama ada anggapan bertentangan wajar dibangkitkan terhadap kes pendakwaan - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil, menawarkan atau membekalkan percakapan saksi telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan dan memprasangka pembelaan tertuduh
|
|
|
SOUTHVILLE CITY SDN BHD v. NORANISAH MOHAMED HISA & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE For the purposes of calculating the liquidated and ascertained damages for late delivery of vacant possession, the date begins when the booking fee is paid to the lawyers acting for the developer although the developer did not receive payment on the same date and payment was made before the license and sale permit was obtained by the developer. LAND LAW: Housing developers - Damages for late delivery - Liquidated and ascertained damages ('LAD') - Commencement date for calculation of LAD - Booking fee paid to developer's lawyer - Booking fee paid before developer obtained its license and sale permit - Whether commencement date starts from date of sale and purchase agreement executed or when booking fee was paid CONTRACT: Formation - Consideration - Sale and purchase of property - Payment of booking fee to developer's lawyer - Whether there was a contract between purchaser and developer when booking fee was paid to developer's lawyer - Consideration and object of agreement legal - Whether contract was valid
|
|
|
M GUNALAN MUNIANDY v. PP Where the court erroneously invokes double presumptions against the accused to prove possession and trafficking and further fails to decide whether the presumptions have been rebutted or otherwise on a balance of probabilities, this tantamounts to a misdirection and the conviction and sentence of the accused for trafficking dangerous drugs is not safe. In such circumstances, the conviction and sentence ought to be set aside and replaced with a conviction for the offence of possession of dangerous drugs. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Offence of trafficking dangerous drugs - Misdirection - Trial judge invoked double presumptions against accused to prove possession and trafficking - Trial judge failed to decide whether presumptions had been rebutted or not on balance of probabilities - Whether approach taken by trial judge was erroneous - Whether conviction and sentence ought to be set aside - Whether accused should be acquitted
|
|
|
MAHBUBUL MATIN v. FIROZE MUHAMMAD ZAHIDUR RAHMAN & ANOR Leave to commence derivative action should not be allowed when it is shown that the applicant himself is the wrongdoer and the application was not made prima facie in the interest of the company. It is not in the company's best interest for leave to be granted when the leave application is motivated by an ulterior motive or collateral purpose. COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Leave to commence derivative action - Suit against director - Interest of company - Test of good faith - Application motivated by ulterior motive or collateral purpose - Whether alleged wrongdoer has control of company - Whether derivative action was properly constituted - Whether notice of intention to seek leave of court to institute a derivative action against respondent properly served - Whether there was good faith on part of applicant to commence action - Whether application was made prima facie in interests of company - Whether losses allegedly suffered by company substantiated
|
CLJ 2020 Volume 10 (Part 1)
The law is clear in that the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is 'the plainly wrong test' principle. The principle encompasses differing and multiple circumstances, but must necessarily apply, inter alia, to situations where it can be shown that the impugned decision is vitiated with plain material errors, or where crucial evidence had been misconstrued, or where the trial judge had so manifestly not taken proper advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses or not properly analysed the entirety of the evidence before him, or where a decision was arrived at without adequate judicial appreciation of the evidence such as to make it rationally unsupportable. This said, the criterion that is central to appellate intervention must remain that deference to the trier of fact is still the rule and not the exception; and the plainly wrong test ought not to be used by the appellate court as a means to substitute the impugned decision with its own.
Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator Of The Estates Of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appellate intervention - Reversal of High Court decision by Court of Appeal - Application of 'plainly wrong' test - Whether appellate intervention justified in event of lack of judicial appreciation of evidence - Whether conclusions on primary facts by trial judge plainly wrong - Whether evidence justified conclusions at trial - Whether Court of Appeal found decision of trial judge plainly wrong - Whether intervention of Court of Appeal warranted
TRUSTS: Constructive trust - Existence of a trust - Acquisition of shares by defendants from monies paid by plaintiff - Obligations under equity - Whether defendant held shares for benefit of plaintiffs - Whether defendants proved contribution for acquisition of shares - Whether defendants obtained shares as a result of dishonest, unconscionable and inequitable conduct - Whether constructive trust created
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
- For the appellants - Cyrus Das, Karin Lim Ai Ching, Suppiah Arumugam, Lee Kar Kheng & Nicholas Lim Wei Jian; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
- For the respondents - Lee Khai, Teh Chiew Yin & Lee Huai; M/s Ong and Maneksha
Penggunaan kedua-dua s. 37(d) dan s. 37(da) Akata Dadah Berbahaya 1952 bagi membangkitkan anggapan atas anggapan atau anggapan berganda dalam membuktikan pertuduhan pengedaran dadah, sama ada di akhir kes pendakwaan atau di akhir kes pembelaan, adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang dan ultra vires Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Walaupun begitu, fakta pemakaian anggapan berganda tersebut semata-mata tidak semestinya dan tidak secara otomatik membolehkan perayu dilepas atau dibebaskan. Kesilapan sedemikian sekadar mewajarkan campurtangan di peringkat rayuan, dan mahkamah masih perlu meneliti segala keterangan bagi menentukan sama ada ianya selamat untuk mahkamah di peringkat rayuan mengekalkan atau tidak sabitan yang telah dibuat.
Tan Kok Leong lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2020] 10 CLJ 58 [CA]
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Pengedaran dadah - Bangkitan dan penggunaan anggapan berganda bawah s. 37A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Tertuduh-tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman mati - Sama ada penggunaan anggapan berganda sah di sisi undang-undang dan dibenarkan - Sama ada ultra vires Perlembagaan Persekutuan - Sama ada penggunaan anggapan berganda memprejudis tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada sabitan dan hukuman selamat
KETERANGAN: Saksi - Kegagalan memanggil saksi material - Pengedaran dadah - Naratif pembelaan memperihalkan kewujudan dan keterlibatan pihak lain - Pihak pendakwaan tidak memanggil pihak-pihak yang dinamakan dalam naratif sebagai saksi - Sama ada saksi material - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi memprejudis tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada anggapan bertentangan wajar dibangkitkan - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g)
KAMARDIN HASHIM HMR
YAACOB MD SAM HMR
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN DIAH HMR
(Rayuan Jenayah No: C-05(M)-535-11-2017)
- Bagi pihak perayu - Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi; T/n Salehuddin Saidin & Assoc
- Bagi pihak responden - Nik Syahril Nik Ab Rahman; TPR
(Rayuan Jenayah No: C-05(M)-536-11-2017)
- Bagi pihak perayu - Rajpal Singh & Y Sheelan Samuagam; T/n Rajpal, Firah & Vishnu
- Bagi pihak responden - Nik Syahril Nik Ab Rahman; TPR
The court's power and jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce is circumscribed and limited by s. 48(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 to only where the domicile of parties to the marriage are at the time the petition is presented. It follows that a joint petition for divorce may only be legally presented when both the husband and wife are residing or domiciled in Malaysia. Lack of jurisdiction, further, cannot be waived, consented to or overcome by any agreement of the parties. Hence, where a joint petition for divorce was filed when both parties were residing in Japan, and a decree of divorce had somehow and nonetheless been granted, such an order must stand as irregular, ineffectual and unenforceable in law and liable to be set aside.
In Re Yamamoto Ryoj i & Anor; Petitioners [2020] 10 CLJ 75 [HC]
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Domicile - Decree nisi - Setting aside - Whether both parties domiciled in Japan - Whether Malaysian court had jurisdiction to hear petition for divorce and to grant decrees - Whether fundamental legal requirement of domicile satisfactorily presented - Whether decrees irregularly obtained - Whether decrees a nullity and ought to be set aside - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 48(1), 49
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ J
- For the applicant/petitioner husband - YN Foo, Kiran Dhaliwal & Yu Yi Lin; M/s YN Foo & Partners
- For the petitioner wife - Kevin Lee, Damien Chan & Carey Lee; M/s CL Lee & Partners
With the increasing acceptance of remote communication technology, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow a transfer application where to do so will not secure the expeditious and economical disposal of the action. This is especially so in situations like the recent Movement Control Order caused by the Covid-19 pandemic which has illustrated that hearings can be conducted with judges in their respective chambers/homes and parties involved in their respective offices/homes.
Liziz Plantation v. Liew Ah Yong [2020] 10 CLJ 94 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Transfer of action - Application for - Application to transfer action from one High Court to another High Court of coordinate jurisdiction - Factors considered - Whether forum of court ought to be changed - Whether in interest of justice that proceedings be transferred - Rules of Court 2012, O. 57 r. 1(4)
SU TIANG JOO JC
- For the plaintiff/respondent - CT Tenh & SK Tenh; M/s CK Lim, Tenh & Chong
- For the defendant/applicant - Manshan Singh Jeswender Singh & Elizabeth Goh Yeek Li; M/s Skrine
(i) Notwithstanding that the right to vary orders in matrimonial proceedings is codified and parties are at "liberty to apply' for further orders and judgments, orders and judgments in matrimonial proceedings, just like any other court orders/judgments, are final and conclusive.
(ii) The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Act 2017 (A1546) does not have retrospective effect to vary a decree nisi entered by parties, except as provided in the transition provision in s. 8. Therefore, an application to vary the terms of a decree nisi with a view to extend the duration for maintenance of a child until such time as the child completes his tertiary education as opposed to the time when the child attains the age of 18 years, following the amendment vide Act A1546 to s. 95 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 which allows such extension, cannot be allowed where the decree nisi was granted before Act A1546 came into force and the child attained 18 years also before Act A1546 came into force.
SSS v. JTSV [2020] 10 CLJ 107 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Variation - Application for - Application to vary decree nisi - Decree nisi recorded in 2005 - Wife sought to vary decree nisi 13 years later after amendment of s. 95 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Whether decree nisi final order/judgment - Whether could be varied - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Act 2017 acts retrospectively - Whether decree nisi ought to be varied - Whether action prevented by res judicata
FAMILY LAW: Dissolution of marriage - Decree nisi - Application to vary decree nisi - Decree nisi recorded in 2005 - Wife sought to vary decree nisi 13 years later after amendment of s. 95 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Whether decree nisi final order/judgment - Whether could be varied - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Act 2017 acts retrospectively - Whether decree nisi ought to be varied
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
- For the petitioner - Nicole Wee; M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff
- For the respondent - Honey Tan & Tay Kit Hoo; M/s Tan Law Practice
In the absence of any satisfactory explanation as to the dissipation of company's monies, the directors of a wound-up company, being the mandatory signatories of the company's bank accounts and having direct and personal knowledge of the dealings of the company, can be considered delinquent in their duties and having the intention to defraud the creditors of the company. That being the case, they may be held personally responsible for any liabilities of the company pursuant to s. 540(1) of the Companies Act 2016.
Tetuan Sulaiman & Taye v. Wong Poh Kun & Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 121 [HC]
COMPANY LAW: Directors - Liabilities - Default by company in payment for legal services rendered - Company wound up - Whether directors liable - Whether directors carried out business with intent to defraud creditors of company - Whether company's monies dissipated by directors with intent to benefit themselves - Whether directors personally liable for debts - Companies Act 2016, s. 540
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
- For the plaintiff - Hazman Ahmad; M/s Omar Ismail Hazman & Co
- For the 2nd defendant - Kho Zhen Qi & LK Ng; M/s Ng, Gan & Partners
CLJ Article(s)
RELIGION AND THE STATE: SECULAR OR THEOCRATIC STATE [Read excerpt]
by DATO' SERI MOHD HISHAMUDDIN YUNUS* [2020] 10 CLJ(A) i
LNS Article(s)
INSIGHTS ON CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION UNDER S. 17A OF THE MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009 [Read excerpt]
by Zuhair Bin Rosli* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxivA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON COPYRIGHT EXCEPTION FOR LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES BETWEEN MALAYSIA, UK AND US [Read excerpt]
by Hanis Yasmin binti Ab Rahim* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxiiHAS THE GDPR SUCCEEDED IN TACKLING ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE? [Read excerpt]
by Nick Yap H.L.* [2020] 1 LNS(A) cxxiii
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 | 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 | - |
| ACT 829 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 | Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) | - |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] | - |
| 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 | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1625 | National Security Council (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 November 2020 | ACT 776 |
| ACT A1624 | Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2020 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 360 |
| ACT A1623 | Subordinate Courts Rules (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 532/2020] | ACT 55 |
| ACT A1622 | Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 531/2020] | ACT 92 |
| ACT A1621 | Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2020 | 22 October 2020 [PU(B) 530/2020] | ACT 91 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 293/2020 | Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 | 5 October 2020 | 6 October 2020 | PU(A) 210/2018 |
| PU(A) 292/2020 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 8) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 | 2 October 2020 | 3 October 2020 | PU(A) 254/2020 |
| PU(A) 291/2020 | Factories and Machinery (Exemption To Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd., Kertih, Terengganu) Order 2020 | 1 October 2020 | 2 October 2020 | ACT 139 |
| PU(A) 287/2020 | Currency (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 2020 | 30 September 2020 | 1 October 2020 | ACT 827 |
| PU(A) 285/2020 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) 2019 Order (Amendment) 2020 | 29 September 2020 | 8 March 2019 until 7 March 2024 | PU(A) 69/2019 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 482/2020 | Amendment of Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation With Regard to The Imports of Flat Rolled Product of Iron Alloy Or Non-Alloy Steel, Plated Or Coated With Zinc, Using Hot Dip Process (Galvanised Iron Coils/sheets Or Galvanised Steel Coils/sheets) Originati | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | PU(B) 126/2019 |
| PU(B) 481/2020 | Declaration of Quarantine Stations (No. 16) 2020 | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | ACT 342 |
| PU(B) 480/2020 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | ACT 701 |
| PU(B) 479/2020 | Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation | 29 September 2020 | 30 September 2020 | ACT A1616 |
| PU(B) 478/2020 | Revocation of Declaration of Roads at Federal Territory of Labuan as Designated Federal Territory Roads | 29 September 2020 | 1 October 2020 | ACT 333 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 241/2001 | Peraturan-Peraturan Perkhidmatan Bomba (Perakuan Bomba) 2001 | PU(A) 290/2020 | 1 Oktober 2020 | Peraturan 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 6, 6A - 6E, 7 dan Jadual Pertama - Jadual Keenam |
| PU(A) 254/2020 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 8) 2020 | PU(A) 321/2020 | 9 November 2020 | Peraturan 4B |
| AKTA 438 | Akta Zon Bebas 1990 | PU(B) 526/2020 | 20 Oktober 2020 | Jadual Pertama |
| ACT 701 | Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 | ACT A1616 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 479/2020] | Sections 62 - 64, 66A and 76 |
| PU(A) 254/2020 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 8) 2020 | PU(A) 310/2020 | 27 Oktober 2020 | Peraturan 4B |
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 |