Back to Top

Issue #5/2020
23 January 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

  1. Case(s) of the Week

    1. KOK KON SANG v. INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA [2020] 1 CLJ 702

  2. Appeal Updates

    1. Appeal Updates

  3. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 5)

  4. Articles

    1. LNS Article(s)

  5. Legislation Highlights

    1. Principal Acts

    2. Amending Acts

    3. PU(A)

    4. PU(B)

    5. Legislation Alert

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

KOK KON SANG v. INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA [2020] 1 CLJ 702
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ALIZA SULAIMAN JC
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: WA-11ANCvC-75-06-2018]
25 APRIL 2019

The filing of a single notice of appeal against two different and distinct orders of the court violates the mandatory and fundamental requirement of O. 55 r. 5(2) Rules of Court 2012. Such a non-compliant notice would leave the respondent in a state of uncertainty as to the case it has to meet in the appeal, and is consequentially defective and ineffectual in law and liable to be struck out.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - Appeal against two distinct orders - Whether appellant should have filed separate appeal instead of single notice appeal against both orders - Non-compliance with Form 111A - Ambiguity in notice of appeal - Whether nature and scope of decision appealed against unclear - Whether prejudicial to respondent - Whether attempt to relitigate matter already decided by court - Whether notice of appeal defective - Rules of Court 2012, O. 55 r. 5(2)


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd v. Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 592 (CA) overruling in part the High Court case of Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd v. Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd [Civil Suit No: WA-22IP-12-03/2016]

  2. Jagdis Singh Banta Singh v. Zakaria Yahaya & Anor [2018] 1 LNS 1151 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Jagdis Singh Banta Singh v. Zakaria Yahaya & Anor [Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-107-2015]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 438

AYU ABDULLAH lwn. ELDZUKIF MOHD RAIS & SATU LAGI

Di dalam tindakan pencerobohan tanah, Aturan 89 k. 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 merupakan prosedur ringkas yang diperuntukkan oleh Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk digunapakai dalam situasi tuntutan milikan tanah yang tidak melibatkan suatu pertikaian fakta dan isu-isu. Oleh kerana geran hakmilik muktamad telah dikeluarkan kepada plaintif, maka plaintif berhak ke atas keseluruhan tanahnya.

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Milikan - Tuntutan untuk - Prosiding terus untuk mendapatkan pemilikan tanah di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Sama ada digunapakai dalam situasi tuntutan milikan tanah yang tidak melibatkan pertikaian fakta dan isu-isu

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Yazmin Chan Abdullah; T/n Yazmin Chan & Associates
  • Bagi pihak defendan - RS Sodhi; T/n Sodhi Chambers

[2018] 1 LNS 481

PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD v. SULAIMAN MOHD SAID & ANOR

A defendant is bound by the obligations and terms of a Consent Order it has drawn up and agreed upon with the plaintiff; the defendant cannot rely upon the terms of a separate contract to deny its obligations under the Consent Order and neither can the defendant rely on events subsequent to the execution of the Consent Order to support its interpretation of the Consent Order.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Consent order - Interpretation of terms - Whether defendant can rely on separate contract to deny obligations under Consent Order executed with plaintiff - Whether defendant can rely on events subsequent to execution of Consent Order to support its interpretation of the Consent Order executed with plaintiff

  • For the defendant/appellant - PS Koh; M/s Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong
  • For the plaintiff/respondent - Lau Kee Sern & Heng Chia Leng; M/s Shook Lin & Bok

[2018] 1 LNS 616

MATTIJAH NOR MOHAMED v. KARAM BIBI SETRU DEEN & ORS

Where the plaintiff complains that the sale and subsequent registration of the transfer of a property sanctioned by the High Court through an order made in an Originating Summons ("the OS Order") is tainted by forgery, the plaintiff must first set aside the OS Order in the very Court that granted the Order before seeking a consequential order for the registration of the transfer of the property to be declared null and void; the plaintiff cannot set aside such OS Order in a separate fresh proceeding.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Setting aside - Complaint that OS order of Court sanctioning the sale and subsequent registration of the transfer of property is tainted with fraud - Whether such OS Order must first be set aside in the very Court that granted the Order before a consequential order to declare the transfer null and void is obtained - Whether the OS Order may be set aside in a separate fresh proceeding

  • For the plaintiff - Mohd Fadly Zakariya; M/s Zuraidah Naziha & Fadly
  • For the third & fourth defendants - Krishnan Papoo; M/s Krishan Papoo & Associates
  • For the fifth defendant - Norulhuda Badiruzaman; M/s Rashidah Shahriman

[2018] 1 LNS 620

PROTOREKA PERUNDING SDN BHD v. BAU MAJU RESOURCES SDN BHD

In an action for the tort of trespass where the defence is that the plaintiff had given its consent to access the plaintiff's land to use a road, the issue of consent is a triable issue that can only be resolved at trial; the O. 14 Rules of Court 2012 summary provision seeks to prevent a plaintiff entitled to money from being deprived of his judgment where there is no fairly arguable case.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Plaintiff's case based on trespass to its land - Defendant's defence that it had plaintiff's consent to access plaintiff's land - Whether issue of consent a triable issue for trial - Whether such issue suitable to be tried summarily under the O. 14 Rules of Court 2012 provision

  • For the plaintiff - Ronald Ong; M/s Sandhu & Company
  • For the defendant - Gabriel Koo; M/s Thomas Ong

[2018] 1 LNS 915

NOOR AZLINDA ZAINUDDIN lwn. ZAINAL ABIDIN LAJAT

Sesuatu fakta yang dinyatakan Plaintif di dalam Penyataan Tuntutannya merupakan satu pengakuan Plaintif sendiri di bawah s. 17 Akta Keterangan 1950

KETERANGAN: Pengakuan-pengakuan - Kenyataan dalam Penyata Tuntutan - Sama ada satu pengakuan di bawah s. 17 Akta Keterangan 1950

  • Bagi pihak perayu - V Rajadevan; T/n Rajadevan & Associates
  • Bagi pihak responden - Yukasliza Che Kar; T/n Dass, Jainab & Associates

CLJ 2020 Volume 1 (Part 5)

The dismissal of public employees is regulated by statute and governed by public law and is thus amenable to public law remedies; in that respect there is no practical distinction between those employed in public services and those in statutory authorities.
Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai & Anor v. Mohd Sobri Che Hassan [2020] 1 CLJ 595 [FC]

|

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Local authority - Public officer - Dismissal - Public officer transferred to different department - Allegation that public officer raised matter of transfer to State Assemblyman who then brought up issue at sitting of State Legislative Assembly - Public officer found guilty of purporting to apply external influence to achieve personal aim - Public officer dismissed from service - Whether dismissal proper and valid - Whether reinstatement amenable to public officer - Whether principles in Mohd Ahmad v. Yang Dipertua Majlis Daerah Jempol, Negeri Sembilan & Anor applied to all cases - Whether there were exceptions to general rule - Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 20(1)(b) - Public Officers (Conduct and Disciplinary) Regulations 1993, reg. 4(2)(h)

LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Dismissal of employee of local authority - Public officer transferred to different department - Allegation that public officer raised matter of transfer to State Assemblyman who then brought up issue at sitting of State Legislative Assembly - Public officer found guilty of purporting to apply external influence to achieve personal aim - Public officer dismissed from service - Whether dismissal proper and valid - Whether public officer on contractual basis - Whether holder of public office under art. 132 of Federal Constitution - Whether relationship between employer and employee governed by statute - Whether procedure of dismissal governed by public law and amenable to public law remedies - Whether there was right to be heard - Public Officers (Conduct and Disciplinary) Regulations 1993, reg. 4(2)(h)

AHMAD MAAROP PCA
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM CJ (MALAYA)
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
ROHANA YUSUF FCJ

  • For the appellants - Cyrus Das, Karin Lim Ai Ching & Murgan Maniam; M/s Presgrave & Matthews
  • For the respondent - Vijaya Navaratnam; M/s Vijaya Navaratnam

Wilful and contumacious conduct on the part of a tenant is not a condition precedent to found a claim for double rent under s. 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956. The rent is chargeable upon the tenant's failure per se to give up possession and upon his continuing to hold over without the landlord's consent.
Rohasassets Sdn Bhd v. Weatherford (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 1 CLJ 638 [FC]

LANDLORD AND TENANT: Determination - Double rent - Claim by landlord - Requirement under s. 28(4)(a) of Civil Law Act 1956 - Whether there must be wilful or contumacious holding over by tenant - Whether charging of double rent at option of landlord - Whether tenants holding over with consent of landlord - Whether tenants at will - Whether landlord's consent implied by conduct - Whether landlord waived right to charge double rent

 

AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
DAVID WONG DAK WAH CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
IDRUS HARUN FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ

  • For the appellant - Ng Sai Yeang & Chong Juen Quan; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
  • For the 1st respondent - T Sudhar & Nadeem Rafiq; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
  • For the 2nd respondent - Rajendra Navaratnam & Mak Hon Pan; M/s Azman Davidson & Co

A landowner whose land has been acquired is only entitled to compensation for damages to his property at the time the Land Administrator acquires the land, which is when the land is gazetted under s. 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. It follows that any structure on the land which was destroyed prior to the acquisition will not attract any compensation for the landowner.
Afeef Abdulqader Mansoor v. Pentadbir Tanah WPKL [2020] 1 CLJ 665 [CA]

LAND LAW: Acquisition - Award - Objection - Appeal against compensation awarded by Land Administrator - Land owner's house and swimming pool damaged/destroyed by landslide - Remaining building/structure on land demolished - Land Administrator acquired barren/vacant land and awarded compensation to land owner - Whether market value of land assessed/determined at date land was gazetted - Whether land owner only entitled to compensation for damages to land/property at time Land Administrator acquired land - Whether land owner ought to be compensated also for house and contents of land before landslide occurred - Whether principles of reinstatement and injurious affection applicable - Whether appeal competent - Whether there was right of appeal - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 1(2C), 2(c), (d), (f) of First Schedule and ss. 8, 40D(3) & 49(1)

 

UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
STEPHEN CHUNG JCA

  • For the appellant - Wan Aizuddin Wan Mohammed; M/s Shafee & Co
  • For the respondent - Ahmad Faiz Razali; FC

A judge trying a drug trafficking case under s. 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is guilty of misdirection if he makes a finding of actual trafficking under s. 2 of the Act and simultaneously invokes the statutory presumption of trafficking under s. 37 (da) thereof. Such misdirection will seriously prejudice the accused as he is left wondering on the burden of proof he should take to administer his defence. Consequently, a conviction recorded in such circumstance is unsafe and liable to be set aside.
Khalid Mehmood v. PP & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 683 [CA]

CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in dangerous drugs - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Possession - Whether accused persons had custody and control of drugs - High Court Judge made finding of actual trafficking under s. 2 and invoked statutory presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether High Court Judge invoked two different burdens to rebut - Whether serious misdirection - Whether accused persons prejudiced - Whether safe to convict accused persons

 

UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID JCA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA

(Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-336-08-2017)

  • For the appellant - Kharen Jit Kaur LCS; Law Chambers of Kharen Jit & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Samihah Rhazali; DPP

(Criminal Appeal No: B-05(M)-337-08-2017)

  • For the appellant - Rajpal Singh; M/s Rajpal, Firah & Vishnu
  • For the respondent - Samihah Rhazali; DPP

The filing of a single notice of appeal against two different and distinct orders of the court violates the mandatory and fundamental requirement of O. 55 r. 5(2) Rules of Court 2012. Such a non-compliant notice would leave the respondent in a state of uncertainty as to the case it has to meet in the appeal, and is consequentially defective and ineffectual in law and liable to be struck out.
Kok Kon Sang v. Institut Akauntan Malaysia [2020] 1 CLJ 702 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - Appeal against two distinct orders - Whether appellant should have filed separate appeal instead of single notice appeal against both orders - Non-compliance with Form 111A - Ambiguity in notice of appeal - Whether nature and scope of decision appealed against unclear - Whether prejudicial to respondent - Whether attempt to relitigate matter already decided by court - Whether notice of appeal defective - Rules of Court 2012, O. 55 r. 5(2)

 

ALIZA SULAIMAN JC

  • For the appellant - In person
  • For the respondent - Nadeem Rafiq; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership

At law, the liability of a guarantor is co-extensive with that of the borrower. Under s. 81 of the Contracts Act 1950, the bank has a right to sue the guarantor upon his personal guarantee and is not required to first exhaust its remedies against the borrower before proceeding against the guarantor.
RHB Bank Bhd v. Singlefine (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 721 [HC]

CONTRACT: Breach - Loan - Restructure term loan facility - Failure to make payments - Bank claimed for sums under restructure term loan facility - Whether bank precluded from claiming against borrower and guarantors - Whether bank's sole recourse was against original obligor under deed of assignment of contract proceeds - Whether undertaking by guarantors to pay the indebtedness owed by borrower primary obligation of guarantors - Whether borrower absolved from repayment of facilities - Whether bank applied undue influence on borrower and guarantors - Whether consent judgment and restructuring agreement enforceable - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 16 & 81

CONTRACT: Breach - Loan - Restructure term loan facility - Guarantor - Liability - Failure to make payments - Bank claimed for sums under restructure term loan facility - Whether bank precluded from claiming against borrower and guarantors - Whether undertaking by guarantors to pay the indebtedness owed by borrower primary obligation of guarantors - Whether liability of guarantor co-extensive with that of obligor - Contracts Act 1950, s. 81

CONTRACT: Assignment - Deed of assignment - Ascertaining intention of parties - Restructure term loan facility - Failure to make payments - Deed of assignment of contract proceeds operated as absolute assignment - Whether ipso facto meant bank's sole recourse was to obligor - Whether borrower absolved from repayment of loan facilities - Whether bank had locus standi to prosecute claim against borrower and guarantors - Contracts Act 1950, s. 81

 

AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN J

  • For the plaintiff - Hoi Jack S'ng & Andrea Chew Mei Yng; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
  • For the defendant - Pavendeep Singh Gurbachan Singh; M/s Paven & Co

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. TUNTUTAN GANTI RUGI KEHILANGAN PENDAPATAN MASA HADAPAN DI MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by Ramalinggam Rajamanickam* Rubendraan Kunasegaran** [2020] 1 LNS(A) vii

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

    TUNTUTAN GANTI RUGI KEHILANGAN PENDAPATAN MASA HADAPAN DI MALAYSIA

    by
    Ramalinggam Rajamanickam*
    Rubendraan Kunasegaran**

    1. PENGENALAN

    Risiko merupakan suatu elemen yang wujud dalam semua kehidupan manusia. Segala aktiviti seharian seseorang mempunyai tahap risikonya yang tersendiri. Terdapat beberapa aktiviti yang mempunyai tahap risiko yang lebih tinggi berbanding dengan aktiviti-aktiviti yang lain. Golongan masyarakat yang menghadapi tahap risiko yang tinggi ialah golongan bekerja. Golongan ini selalu menggunakan jalan raya untuk perjalanan pergi dan balik dari rumah ke tempat kerja. Oleh itu, mereka terdedah kepada risiko di tempat kerja dan juga di jalan raya. Jika seseorang itu tidak bernasib baik dan ditimpa kemalangan, maka sudah pastinya mangsa akan mengambil masa untuk sembuh dan kembali bekerja dalam keadaan yang baik dan sihat.

    . . .

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

    ** Pelajar Prasiswazah, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). E-mel: rubenkuna97@gmail.com


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. TRADEMARKS ACT 2019 - A BIRD'S EYE VIEW ON THE KEY CHANGES (PART 1) [Read excerpt]
    by Bahari Yeow[i] Lim Zhi Jian[ii] Alex Choo[iii] [2020] 1 LNS(A) viii

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

    TRADEMARKS ACT 2019 - A BIRD'S EYE VIEW ON THE KEY CHANGES
    (PART 1)


    by
    Bahari Yeow[i]
    Lim Zhi Jian[ii]
    Alex Choo[iii]

    27 December 2019 marks a significant milestone for the development of trademark laws in Malaysia – the coming into force of the Trademarks Act 2019 (“TMA 2019”). With the coming into force of the TMA 2019, an act which once contained 84 provisions[1] was replaced by a new act that now contains 183 provisions.

    In this edition, we endeavor to provide readers with a palatable brief overview on some of key changes that the TMA 2019 introduces to the Malaysian trademark regime.

    . . .

    [i] Bahari Yeow, LLB, CLP, LLM; Partner, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

    [ii] Lim Zhi Jian, LLB, CLP; Partner, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

    [iii] Alex Choo, LLB, Associate, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

    The authors are members of the IP & TMT Practice at Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 824 Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force -
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 -
ACT 822 National Anti-Financial Crime Centre Act 2019 2 January 2020 [PU(B) 664/2019] -
ACT 820 Superior of the Institute of the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary (Incorporation) Act 1957 (Revised 2019) 27 December 2019 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 December 2019; First enacted in 1957 as Federation of Malaya Ordinance No 39 of 1957 -
ACT 819 Daughters of Charity of the Canossian Institute (Incorporation) Act 1957 (Revised 2019) 27 December 2019 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 December 2019; First enacted in 1957 as Federation of Malaya Ordinance No 33 of 1957 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1611 Employees Provident Fund (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 452
ACT A1610 Petroleum (Income Tax) (Amendment) Act 2019 1 January 2020 ACT 543
ACT A1609 Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2019 1 January 2020 ACT 53
ACT A1608 Supply Act 2020 1 January 2020  
ACT A1607 Trade Descriptions (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 730

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 7/2020 Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Peneroka Felda Kemahang (1) Berhad) (Appointment and Revocation of Appointment) Order 2020 13 January 2020 15 January 2020 ACT 502
PU(A) 6/2020 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 2) Order 2020 10 January 2020 11 January 2020 ACT 723
PU(A) 5/2020 Minimum Wages Order 2020 10 January 2020 1 February 2020 ACT 732
PU(A) 4/2020 Islamic Financial Services (Exemption) Order 2020 7 January 2020 8 January 2020 ACT 759
PU(A) 3/2020 Poisons (Amendment of Third Schedule) Order 2020 6 January 2020 7 January 2020 ACT 366

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 10/2020 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Commissioner of Buildings for the Federal Territory of Labuan 7 January 2020 8 January 2020 ACT 757
PU(B) 9/2020 Reservation of Land for Public Purpose for Lot 201650 Mukim Setapak 7 January 2020 8 January 2020 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 8/2020 Notice of Contested Election Constituency of P.176 Kimanis, State of Sabah 6 January 2020 7 January 2020 PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 7/2020 Returns and Statements of Election Expenses - Johore 6 January 2020 7 January 2020 ACT 5
PU(B) 6/2020 Revocation Of Appointment Of Assistant Director Of Forestry 3 January 2020 1 January 2020 ACT 313

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 210/2018 Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) Order 2018 PU(A) 371/2019 1 January 2020 Schedule A
PU(A) 221/2018 Sales Tax (Rates of Tax) Order 2018 PU(A) 370/2019 1 January 2020 First Schedule
PU(A) 214/2018 Service Tax Regulations 2018 PU(A) 357/2019 1 January 2020 First Schedule
PU(A) 103/2017 Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017 PU(A) 358/2019 1 January 2020 First and Second Schedule
ACT 777 Companies Act 2016 ACT A1605 15 January 2020 [PU(B) 16/2020] Sections 4, 66, 72, 84, 93, 247, 253, 304, 340, 386, 409, 433 and 580A

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
AKTA 175 Akta Cap Dagangan 1976 AKTA 815 27 Disember 2019 [PU(B) 655/2019]
ACT 175 Trade Marks Act 1976 ACT 815 27 December 2019 [PU(B) 655/2019]
PU(A) 102/2005 Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 13) Order 2005 PU(A) 363/2019 1 January 2020
PU(A) 154/2000 Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Cess) Order 2000 PU(A) 361/2019 1 January 2020
PU(A) 115/2001 Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Cess) Order 2001 PU(A) 361/2019 1 January 2020