Back to Top

Issue #7/2020
06 February 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. DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABDUL RAZAK v. PEGUAM NEGARA & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2020] 2 CLJ 73

  2. Appeal Updates

    1. Appeal Updates

  3. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2020 Volume 2 (Part 1)

  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

DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABDUL RAZAK v.
PEGUAM NEGARA & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL
[2020] 2 CLJ 73
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA; LAU BEE LAN JCA; HASZANAH MEHAT JCA
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: W-01(A)-146-03-2019 & W-01(A)-148-03-2019]
14 OCTOBER 2019

A judicial review application to challenge the decision of the Attorney General in appointing an advocate and solicitor as a Deputy Public Prosecutor under s. 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code differs, by its very nature and jurisdiction, from an application in the criminal court to disqualify him from the said position on grounds of conflict, bias or fitness. It follows that where an accused person has applied for a judicial review and simultaneously motioned the criminal court as above, there would not arise any duplicity and multiplicity of proceedings in the two actions. It follows further, therefore, that the civil High Court is empowered, despite the criminal motion, to hear the judicial review application, both at the leave and substantive stages.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Determination of legality, validity and appropriateness of appointment of Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor - Whether there was duplicity in proceedings - Whether justiciability of appointment considered in substantive hearing - Whether there was abuse of process of court 


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Sujan Dahal v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1546 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Sujan Dahal [Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45B-07-08/2016]

  2. Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abdul Razak v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1837 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Hj Abdul Razak v. PP [Permohonan Jenayah Bil: MTJ (1) 44-211-12/2018]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 642

CHIAM NGUANG HUAT lwn. PP

Tingkah laku tertuduh yang membawa si mati untuk mendapatkan rawatan kecemasan dengan segera menunjukkan tertuduh tiada niat membunuh.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Perbuatan menyimbah petrol ke badan si mati dan membaling putung rokok yang bernyala ke arah si mati - Tertuduh membawa si mati untuk mendapatkan rawatan kecemasan dengan segera - Keterangan ahli patologi tidak konklusif - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai niat untuk membunuh si mati - Sama ada pertuduhan bunuh telah dibuktikan - Sama ada s. 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 telah dipatuhi

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Y Anbananthan; T/n The Poh Teik & Company
  • Bagi pihak responden - Muhamad Azmi Mashud, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2018] 1 LNS 643

ITA lwn. PP

Adalah amat tidak munasabah untuk tertuduh semata-mata mempercayai bahawa beg yang dibawanya adalah mengandungi pakaian dalam keadaan beg tersebut diberikan oleh seorang yang tidak dikenali dan perbuatan tersebut dilakukan hanya di atas alasan mematuhi arahan majikan.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Pembawa ikhlas - Doktrin 'wilful blindness' - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Dadah dijumpai disembunyikan di dalam beg galas yang diberikan oleh seorang yang tidak dikenali - Beg dibawa atas arahan majikan - Sama ada tertuduh seharusnya mempunyai asas untuk mensyaki kandungan beg yang dibawanya - Sama ada tertuduh dengan sengaja membutakan matanya - Sama ada munasabah untuk tertuduh mempercayai beg yang dibawanya mengandungi pakaian - Sama ada anggapan milikan di bawah s. 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 berjaya disangkal

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Choong Kak Sen; T/n Gooi & Azura
  • Bagi pihak responden - Wong Poi Yoke, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2018] 1 LNS 2162

SITI NUR AISHAH ISHAK v. GOLDEN PLUS HOLDINGS BERHAD

Section 217(2)(a)(ii) of Companies Act 1965 does not permit a contributory to file a winding-up petition unless the contributory has been a registered shareholder for at least 6 months in the 18 months before the presentation of the petition.

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Opposition to petition - Locus standi - Petition filed by petitioner in her capacity as a contributory - Petitioner only became a registered shareholder a month before presentation of winding up petition - Whether petitioner has necessary locus standi to present a winding up petition under ss. 218(b) and 218(i) Companies Act 1965 - Whether winding up petition was defective

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Petition - Allegation of non-compliance with statutory report by company - Allegation that company failed to announce or issue its financial statements - Whether directors acted in a manner unfair or unjust to shareholders - Whether company had filed its accounts - Whether petitioner could rely on matters outside petition - Whether matters raised in petitioner's affidavit in reply and submission which do not relate to grounds stated in petition ought to be disregarded

  • For the petitioner - Razlan Hadri, David Mathews, Malarvily Perumal & Danny Soong; M/s Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri
  • For the respondent - Ira Biswas, Urn Tuck Sun & Ariel On Xiu Tao; M/s Chooi & Company
  • For the opposing creditor (China Idea Development Limited) - Su Tiang Joo, Teh Eng Lay & Lee Yen Yee; M/s Cheah Teh & Su
  • For the opposing contributories (Yong Chooi Lan, South Power Investment Limited and Rosa Bianca Investments Limited) - Lim Chee Wee, Kwan Will Sen & Nimalan Devaraja; M/s Skrine
  • For the opposing contributory (Lai Su-Chen) - Alan Adrian Gomez & Michael Yap; M/s Tommy Thomas
  • For the opposing contributory (Yang Jin) - Robert Lazar, Toi Tee Toen & Azad Akbar; M/s Kesavan

[2018] 1 LNS 2184

POH CHEE LENG & ANOR v. CHEAH SIEW HUEN & ANOR

The granting of an injunction would be futile and meaningless where a party no longer has any control, possession and ownership over the subject land.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Interim preservation of property - Urgency - Land was transferred by defendant 1 to defendant 2 - Entry of private caveat by plaintiff - Absence of full and frank disclosure during ex parte injunction application - Defendant 1 no longer having any control, possession and ownership over land - Whether granting of an injunction would be futile and meaningless - Whether plaintiff acted in good faith in applying for injunction order - Whether damages an adequate remedy - Whether question of balance of convenience is relevant when there is no serious question to be tried

  • For the plaintiff - YS Ling; M/s YS Ling & Co
  • For the first defendant - S Kanaga Sundra & PY Ng; M/s Raja Seelan & Associates
  • For the second defendant - Balan Nair & Naveen Sri Kantha; M/s Thomas Philip

[2018] 1 LNS 2201

NALEEN NAIR SEKARAN NAIR v. JASIM SURA PUTHUCHEARY & ANOR

When applying for an interlocutory injunction under s. 102 LRA 1976 to restrain a party from dealing with land pending disposal of a divorce petition, it must be demonstrated that the land is being disposed of with intention of depriving a party of his rights in relation to matrimonial assets.

FAMILY LAW: Injunction - Injunction to restrain disposition of matrimonial assets - Application for interlocutory injunction pending disposal of petition - Petitioner's claim to a beneficial interest in land stated in petition - Whether there was an intention on part of respondent to dispose of land so as to defeat petitioner's claim - Whether petitioner has to demonstrate that respondent is disposing of land with intention to deprive petitioner of her rights to matrimonial assets - Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of granting interlocutory injunction - Whether damages will be an adequate remedy - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 102

  • For the petitioner - Siew Choon Jern & Lim Pit Feng; Douglas Yee
  • For the respondents - Porres P Royan; Kumar Partnership

CLJ 2020 Volume 2 (Part 1)

An encroachment onto a forest reserve in Sarawak to which statutory rights is held by natives to forage or harvest forest produce without the natives' permission amounts to trespass in law and the tort entitles the natives to claim for appropriate damages. That notwithstanding, the imposition of conditions on the use would show that the forest and the rights thereto are still being controlled by the State.
Director Of Forest Sarawak & Ors v. Nicholas Mujah Ason & Ors [2020] 2 CLJ 1 [FC]

|

NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM: Declaratory order - Application for - Plaintiffs descendants of permanent residents of forest reserve - Gazette Notification No 760 entitling plaintiffs right to forage or harvest forest produce subject to express conditions - Whether rights similar to practices of 'pulau galau' and 'pemakai menoa' - Whether rights of plaintiffs statutorily created and distinguished from claimed native customary rights practices - Whether conditions attached showed that State retained control over forest reserve - Whether State failed to exercise control - Whether encroachment upon forest reserve without plaintiff's permission amounted to trespass - Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages for trespass - Sarawak Forest Ordinance 1934, s. 12(2)

TORT: Trespass - Encroachment onto land - Plaintiffs descendants of permanent residents of forest reserve - Gazette Notification No 760 entitling plaintiffs right to forage or harvest forest produce subject to express conditions - Licensed timber company granted concession area for extraction of timber - Construction of rail line over part of lands in forest reserve causing damage to environment - Whether encroachment upon forest reserve without plaintiff's permission amounted to trespass - Whether plaintiffs in legal occupation of forest reserve - Whether corresponding steps taken by State to alter conditions - Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages for trespass - Sarawak Forest Ordinance 1934, s. 12(2)

AHMAD MAAROP PCA
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM CJ (MALAYA)
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ
ABANG ISKANDAR FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ

  • For the appellant - Mohd Adzrul Adzlan & Emma Mohd Yusri; SLO, Sarawak
  • For the respondent - Joshua P Baru & Clarice Chan; M/s Baru Bian

Section 36 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is an exception to the fundamental rule of criminal law that the prosecution must prove all elements of the offence charged and is applicable to a proceeding for an offence under s. 39B of the Act in which the prosecution is relying on s. 37(da). Since s. 36 makes it clear that it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to negative by evidence any licence, authorisation, authority or other matter of exception or defence, there is therefore no burden on the prosecution to prove the absence or lack of authorisation or authority. The burden of proving such matter is on the person seeking to avail himself thereof, id est the accused.
Jazlie Jaafar v. PP [2020] 2 CLJ 28 [FC]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA') - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Whether trial judge erred when invoking presumption under s. 37(da) - Whether prosecution failed to satisfy all requirements under s. 37(da) - Whether duty of prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence that accused did not have required authority under DDA or any other written law to be in possession of drugs - Whether burden of proving licence, authorisation, authority or other matter of exception or defence on person seeking to avail himself - Whether s. 36 applicable to a proceeding for an offence under s. 39B in which prosecution relied on s. 37(da) of DDA - Whether conviction and sentence of accused safe

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes - Application of - Elements of offence of trafficking under s. 2 of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA') - Whether prosecution for offence of trafficking under s. 39B(1)(a) of DDA within ambit of phrase 'any proceedings against any person for an offence against this Act' - Whether s. 36 applicable to proceeding for an offence under s. 39B in which prosecution relied on s. 37(da)

AHMAD MAAROP PCA
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM CJ (MALAYA)
RAMLY ALI FCJ
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ
ROHANA YUSUF FCJ
ABANG ISKANDAR FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ

  • For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Mary J Periera & Sukhaimi Mashud; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
  • For the respondent - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar & Tetralina Ahmad Fauzi; SFC

An association claiming that it is not a society within the meaning of Societies Act 1966 must show that it is excepted by the definition of 'society' in s. 2 thereof; where the exception relied on is that of para 2(b), it must be shown that the association is constituted under a written law which specifically enables or provides for its constitution.
Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang [2020] 2 CLJ 53 [FC]

|

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS: Societies - Pasukan Peronda Sukarela Pulau Pinang - Society established to give residents opportunity to assist State Government in reducing crimes and managing emergencies and natural disaster - Altercation between members of society and member of public - Minister declared society unlawful on grounds of carrying out activities prejudicial to public order - Whether society fell within legal and statutory definition of 'society' - Whether society excepted by statutory definition of 'society' - Whether society lawfully established - Whether Minister had unfettered discretion to declare society unlawful - Whether Minister's discretion exercised reasonably - Societies Act 1966, ss. 2, 5, 6(2)

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Societies Act 1966 - Section 2 - 'Society' - Whether Pasukan Peronda Sukarela Pulau Pinang fell under definition of 'society' - Whether fell under statutory exception of definition of 'society'

MD RAUS SHARIF CJ
AHMAD MAAROP CJ (MALAYA)
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM FCJ
RAMLY ALI FCJ
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ

  • For the appellants - Shamsul Bolhassan & Shaiful Nizam Shahrin; SFCs
  • For the respondent - Ambiga Sreenevasan & Ganesan Nethi; M/s Tommy Thomas

A judicial review application to challenge the decision of the Attorney General in appointing an advocate and solicitor as a Deputy Public Prosecutor under s. 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code differs, by its very nature and jurisdiction, from an application in the criminal court to disqualify him from the said position on grounds of conflict, bias or fitness. It follows that where an accused person has applied for a judicial review and simultaneously motioned the criminal court as above, there would not arise any duplicity and multiplicity of proceedings in the two actions. It follows further, therefore, that the civil High Court is empowered, despite the criminal motion, to hear the judicial review application, both at the leave and substantive stages.
Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak v. Peguam Negara & Ors And Another Appeal [2020] 2 CLJ 73 [CA]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Determination of legality, validity and appropriateness of appointment of Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor - Whether there was duplicity in proceedings - Whether justiciability of appointment considered in substantive hearing - Whether there was abuse of process of court

 

HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA
LAU BEE LAN JCA
HASZANAH MEHAT JCA

(Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-146-03-2019)

  • For the appellant - Shafee Abdullah & Sarah Abishegam; M/s Shafee & Co
  • For the respondents - Tommy Thomas; AG, Shamsul Bolhassan, Ahmad Akram Gharib, Mustapha Kunayalam, Liew Horng Low Wen Zhen, Mohamad Syakil Mohamad Zulkifli, Ann Khong Hui Lee; SFCs

(Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-148-03-2019)

  • For the appellant - Harvinderjit Singh & Wee Yeong Kang; M/s Shafee & Co
  • For the respondents - Tommy Thomas; AG, Shamsul Bolhassan, Ahmad Akram Gharib, Mustapha Kunayalam, Liew Horng Low Wen Zhen, Mohamad Syakil Mohamad Zulkifli, Ann Khong Hui Lee; SFCs

Parties to a sale and purchase agreement in landed property may have by conduct abandoned the contract in favour of a new arrangement or agreement between them. The pertinent act or conduct may also amount to estoppel, such that they were estopped from asserting the validity of the original agreement, or entering any caveat on the property.
Takashimaya Construction & Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v. My Influx Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2020] 2 CLJ 92 [CA]

|

CONTRACT: Agreement - Breach - Failure to construct, complete and deliver vacant possession of units - Claim for damages - Whether developer and registered proprietor of land liable to refund deposit paid by plaintiffs - Whether sale and purchase agreement in 2007 (SPAs 2007) to build a seven and a half storey building converted or succeeded by new agreement ('JVA') to build a 15 storey building - Whether plaintiffs played active role in facilitating for changes to building - Whether evidence showed that SPAs 2007 was abandoned - Whether there were reservation of rights under SPAs 2007 - Whether plaintiffs estopped from asserting validity of SPAs 2007 - Whether plaintiffs failed or refused to sign JVA for 15 storey building - Whether plaintiffs had basis to enter caveats on land - Whether caveats ought to be removed

LAND LAW: Caveat - Removal of - Whether plaintiffs had beneficial interest in undivided share of land - Whether plaintiffs paid full purchase price of property - Whether sale and purchase agreement expressly prohibited plaintiffs from entering any caveat on land - Whether plaintiffs had no basis to enter caveats on land - Whether caveats ought to be removed

BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA

  • For the appellants - Chew Chang Min & Wong Hok Chong; M/s Chew Chang Min
  • For the respondents - Gopal Sri Ram, Wong Rhen Yen, James Edwin, Goik Kenwayne, Emily Wong & Yasmeen Soh; M/s Colin Victor & Co
  • For the liquidator - S Raven & Siti Nur Amirah

The decision to teach Jawi writing in the Malay language subject taught at the national type and national schools is within the domain of the Executive and is not amenable to judicial review.
Dominic Lau Hoe Chai v. Maszlee Malik & Ors [2020] 2 CLJ 131 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application to quash decision on education policy - Decision to implement Jawi writing in Malay language subject taught at national type and national schools - Whether policy contravened art. 12(3) of Federal Constitution - Locus standi - Whether applicant 'adversely affected' by decision - Whether public interest litigation - Whether policy concerned matters of Malay language, national heritage and national identity - Whether amenable to judicial review - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53

 

AMARJEET SINGH JC

  • For the applicant - Tan Lee Kiat & Mak Kah Keong; M/s K K Mak & Co
  • For the respondent - Ahmad Hanir Hambaly; SFC

Pihak-pihak berkuasa yang terlibat dalam pengambilan tanah harus mematuhi keperluan-keperluan undang-undang yang diperuntukkan bawah ss. 11, 12 dan 16 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Peruntukan-peruntukan ini adalah mandatori melalui penggunaan perkataan 'shall'. Kegagalan mematuhi peruntukan-peruntukan menjejaskan dan menjadikan proses pengambilan tanah tidak sah dan terbatal.
Jugajorthy Visvanathan & Satu Lagi lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah, Pulau Pinang & Yang Lain [2020] 2 CLJ 141 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Kesahan - Tanah gadaian diambil oleh Kerajaan - Perbicaraan pengambilan tanah tidak dihadiri pemilik tanah tetapi dihadiri pemegang gadaian - Pentadbir tanah membayar pampasan kepada pemegang gadaian sebagai langsaian hutang dan mengawardkan baki pampasan kepada pemilik tanah - Sama ada pengambilan tanah dibuat mengikut peruntukan-peruntukan mandatori - Sama ada pemilik tanah diberi notis pengambilan tanah - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil pemilik tanah menghadiri perbicaraan menjejaskan pengambilan tanah - Sama ada pemegang gadaian berhak berunding dan menerima pampasan - Sama ada pengambilan tanah sah - Sama ada pengambilan tanah dibuat secara mala fide - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, ss. 11, 12 & 16

 

HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL H

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Amareson & Tinoshiny; T/n Athimulan & Co
  • Bagi pihak defendan pertama - Siti Fatimah Talib & Charanjit Singh; Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri, Pulau Pinang
  • Bagi pihak defendan kedua - Rahazlan Afandi; Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri, Pulau Pinang
  • Bagi pihak defendan ketiga - Badrul Samad; T/n Badrul, Samad, Faik & Co
  • Bagi pihak defendan kelima - Jei Sooria & CH Yong; T/n Othman Hashim & Co

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. JAYA SUDHIR A/L JAYARAM v. NAUTICAL SUPREME SDN BHD[1] A case note* [Read excerpt]
    by VONG SZE XIN [2020] 1 LNS(A) x

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

    JAYA SUDHIR A/L JAYARAM v. NAUTICAL SUPREME SDN BHD[1]
    A case note*


    by
    VONG SZE XIN

    Background facts

    Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd (“Nautilus”) was a joint venture company formed to undertake a project for the provision of harbour tug services. Its shareholders were Azimuth Marine (“Azimuth”) and Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd (“Nautical Supreme”). The plaintiff, Jaya Sudhir Jayaram (“Jaya”), was not a shareholder of Nautilus but claimed that he had agreed to invest in the project based on his collateral understanding with Nautical Supreme and Azimuth that:

    • Azimuth would hold part of its shares in Nautilus in trust for Jaya; and
    • Jaya would be entitled to participate in Nautilus’s equity.

    Jaya contended that Azimuth and Nautical Supreme had acknowledged his beneficial ownership to the shares and 10% of the shares in Nautilus had, in fact, been transferred by Azimuth to Jaya. Nautical Supreme denied the existence of such collateral understanding and commenced arbitration proceedings against Azimuth and Nautilus in accordance with the arbitration clause in the shareholders’ agreement.

    . . .

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


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 825 Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 31 January 2020 -
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 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1613 Carriage of Goods by Sea (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Foce ACT 527
ACT A1612 Copyright (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 332
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

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 21/2020 Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Land (Amendment) Rules 2020 20 January 2020 21 January 2020 PU(A) 26/1995
PU(A) 20/2020 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price for Petrol and Diesel) (No. 3) Order 2020 17 January 2020 18 January 2020 ACT 723
PU(A) 19/2020 Local Speed Limit (Federal Roads) (Specified Time Prohibition) Order 2020 17 January 2020 18 January 2020 to 2 February 2020 ACT 333
PU(A) 18/2020 National Speed Limit (Temporary Cessation) Order 2020 17 January 2020 18 January 2020 to 2 February 2020 ACT 333
PU(A) 17/2020 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) Order 2020 17 January 2020 20 January 2020 to 2 February 2020 ACT 723

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 22/2020 Notification of Application for Registration of New Plant Variety and Grant of Breeder's Right - Dekarlisa 15 January 2020 16 January 2020 ACT 634
PU(B) 21/2020 Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor 15 January 2020 16 January 2020 ACT 593
PU(B) 20/2020 Notification of Application for Registration of New Plant Variety and Grant of Breeder's Right - Negara Taman 15 January 2020 16 January 2020 ACT 634
PU(B) 19/2020 Notification of Application for Registration of New Plant Variety and Grant of Breeder's Right - DLFYIN1 15 January 2020 16 January 2020 ACT 634
PU(B) 17/2020 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Member and Alternate Member of the Authority 14 January 2020 15 January 2020 ACT 231

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 150/2007 Excise (Customs Ruling) Regulations 2007 PU(A) 401/2019 1 January 2020 Schedules A, B and C
PU(A) 204/2018 Sales Tax (Customs Ruling) Regulations 2018 PU(A) 400/2019 1 January 2020 First, Second and Third Schedules
PU(A) 167/2014 Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 3) Order 2014 PU(A) 399/2019 1 January 2020 Paragraph 5
PU(A) 445/2017 Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2017 PU(A) 396/2019 1 January 2020 Schedule
PU(A) 212/2018 Service Tax (Imposition of Tax For Taxable Service in Respect of Designated Areas and Special Areas) Order 2018 PU(A) 393/2019 1 January 2020 Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 359/2019 Excise (Determination of Value of Locally Manufactured Goods For the Purpose of Levying Excise Duty) Regulations 2019 PU(A) 402/2019 1 January 2020
PU(A) 162/1977 Customs Regulations 1977 PU(A) 397/2019 1 January 2020
ACT 803 Anti-Fake News Act 2018 ACT 825 31 January 2020
AKTA 803 Akta Antiberita Tidak Benar 2018 AKTA 825 31 Januari 2020
PU(A) 460/1997 Trade Marks Regulations 1997 PU(A) 373/2019 27 December 2019