Back to Top

Issue #12/2021
25 March 2021

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

GOLDEN STAR & ORS v. LING PEEK HOE & ORS [2021] 3 CLJ 443
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[CIVIL REVIEW NO: 02(f)-24-04-2016(A)]
11 JANUARY 2021

Parties and solicitors to a suit had no business to disobey a court order, or to aid or abet a noncompliance, and in so doing, risk the prospect of being cited for contempt. When, therefore, the respondents and their solicitor herein, in disregard of the order of the Federal Court ordering them to cause the charge created on the applicant's properties to be discharged and to return the original title deeds to the applicant, have not only failed or refused to obey the order within the time stipulated, but went on to file, while continuing to disobey the order, and after a review application filed earlier by the previous solicitor had been struck off, another two separate applications to review the order and affirming thereby an affidavit questioning the validity and enforceability of the Federal Court order, and indeed accusing the apex court of bias, then both the respondents and the lawyer must be held to have been guilty of conduct which could be termed as recalcitrant, contumacious and disrespectful, and so, deserved to be cited for contempt and treated as contemnors. For the lawyer specifically and additionally, no refuge could be had in the argument that he was only acting professionally or following his clients' instructions, or that he is protected by s. 35(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976. Section 35(1) of the LPA merely deals with a lawyer's right to appear and plead in court; it does not protect a lawyer from contempt.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings - Application for - Failure by proposed contemnors to obey Federal Court Order - Proceeded to file second and third review applications after first review application struck out without liberty to file afresh - Whether blatant disregard of Federal Court Order - Whether all avenue of appeal exhausted - Whether non-compliance of court order showcased total disregard and disrespect - Whether conduct and behaviour of advocate and solicitor contumacious and disrespectful - Whether contempt of court established


IKI PUTRA MUBARRAK v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ANOR [2021] 3 CLJ 465
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
[PETITION NO: BKA-3-11-2019(W)]
25 FEBRUARY 2021
[2021] CLJ JT(5)

Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, which criminalises unnatural sex, is in contravention of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. The section, while providing for the offences against the 'precepts of Islam', is limited by the preclusion clause contained in the State List, ie, 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List'. Criminal law being a federal matter, is exclusively for Parliament to enact; and is beyond the legislative competency of the State Legislature.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity of legislation - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 28 - Offence against 'precepts of Islam' - Challenge against competency of Selangor State Legislature to legislate offences against precepts of Islam - Whether qualified by phrase 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List' in item 1, List II, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether States restricted from making laws on subjects within domain of Parliament - Whether criminal law within domain of Parliament - Whether s. 28 enacted in contravention of item 1 of State List - Whether s. 28 inconsistent with Federal Constitution - Whether void

ISLAMIC LAW: Legislation - Validity of impugned legislation - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 28 - Offence against 'precepts of Islam' - Challenge against competency of Selangor State Legislature to legislate offences against precepts of Islam - Whether qualified by phrase 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List' in item 1, List II, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether States restricted from making laws on subjects within domain of Parliament - Whether criminal law within domain of Parliament - Whether s. 28 enacted in contravention of item 1 of State List - Whether s. 28 inconsistent with Federal Constitution - Whether void


PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA v. MKINI DOTCOM SDN BHD & ANOR [2021] 3 CLJ 603
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
[CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 08(L)-4-06-2020(W)]
19 FEBRUARY 2021
[2021] CLJ JT(6)

(i) Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950 provides for presumptions of facts in publication of contents on the Internet to assist in identifying and in proving the identity of an anonymous person involved in the publication through the Internet. Although the prosecution need not prove the existence of the basic facts before invoking such presumption, the presumption is rebuttable and must be proved on a balance of probabilities;
(ii) With the invocation of the presumptions, online portals/platforms that contain offensive comments can be held liable for facilitating the publication of such comments. In order to avoid liability, these online platforms/portals must have in place a system that is capable of detecting and rapidly removing offensive comments. Portals/platforms cannot just wait to be alerted by their online subscribers because such alert may never come and this would unjustifiably and irresponsibly shift the entire blame on third party online subscribers while exonerating itself of all liabilities.

CRIMINAL LAW: Contempt - Committal proceedings - Application for - Application for committal proceedings by Attorney General against online news portal ('respondents') - Respondents published article on re-opening of courts - Third party subscribers of portal left comments criticising courts and Judiciary and implying Chief Justice was corrupt - Whether respondents had knowledge of impugned comments - Whether respondents facilitated publication of comments - Whether presumption under s. 114A of Evidence Act 1950 could be invoked - Whether respondents presumed to be publishers of comments - Whether prima facie case for contempt of court established - Whether intention to publish must be proven

EVIDENCE: Presumption - Presumption of facts - Publication of contents on Internet - Application for committal proceedings by Attorney General against online news portal ('respondents') - Respondents published article on re-opening of courts - Third party subscribers of portal left comments criticising courts and Judiciary and implying Chief Justice was corrupt - Whether respondents facilitated publication of impugned comments - Whether respondents had knowledge of comments - Whether presumption under s. 114A of Evidence Act 1950 could be invoked - Whether respondents could be presumed to be publishers of comments - Whether prima facie case for contempt of court established - Whether intention to publish must be proven - Whether requirements under s. 114A(1) of Evidence Act 1950 satisfied

CRIMINAL LAW: Contempt - Committal proceedings - Committal proceedings by Attorney General against online news portal ('respondents') - Defence - Respondents published article - Third party subscribers of portal left comments criticising courts and Judiciary and implying Chief Justice was corrupt - Whether compliance with Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code ('MCMCC') defence against any action or prosecution in court or other forum - Whether respondent complied with MCMCC and afforded defence under law - Whether respondents not required to monitor activities of users and subscribers until being prompted by complaints - Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, ss. 98 & 99


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Zerin Properties v. Naza TTDI Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 784 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Zerin Properties v. Naza TTDI Sdn Bhd [Suit No: BA-22NCVC-345-06/2016]

  2. PP lwn. Muhammad Haiqal Rasol [2019] 1 LNS 791 (CA) mengubah kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP v. Muhammad Haiqal Rasol [Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45A-97-10/2016]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 2307

MOHAMED IMRAN JALALUDEEN lwn. MUHAMMAD AIMAN KAMAL & YANG LAIN

Pihak sekolah dan kerajaan Malaysia harus sentiasa memberi kawalan, pengawasan dan perlindungan kepada pelajar-pelajar di sekolah asrama pada tahap yang lebih tinggi berbanding dengan sekolah-sekolah biasa. Pihak sekolah dan kerajaan Malaysia telah melanggar kewajipan berhati-hati dan wajar dipertanggungjawabkan bagi kecederaan dan kerugian yang dialami oleh pelajar semasa berada di asrama.

TORT: Kecuaian - Kecederaan diri - Tuntutan oleh pelajar terhadap pengetua sekolah asrama dan kerajaan Malaysia - Pelajar mengalami kecederaan diri akibat dipukul oleh penghuni asrama yang lain - Sama ada pihak sekolah bertanggungjawab untuk segala tindakan dan peninggalan yang dilakukan oleh kakitangan sekolah - Sama ada petugas sekolah mempunyai tahap berjaga-jaga dan pantauan yang lebih tinggi berbanding dengan sekolah-sekolah biasa - Sama ada pihak sekolah telah gagal memberikan pengawasan dan penjagaan yang mencukupi - Sama ada wujud perlangaran kewajipan berhati-hati di pihak sekolah dan kerajaan Malaysia apabila pelajar telah mengalami kecederaan dan kerugian akibat dipukul oleh penghuni sekolah asrama yang lain - Sama ada pihak sekolah dan kerajaan Malaysia wajar dipertanggungjawabkan bagi kecederaan dan kerugian yang dialami oleh pelajar

[2019] 1 LNS 234

SYARAFI ABU lwn. PP

1. Hakim bicara mempunyai budi bicara yang sepenuhnya berdasarkan fakta dan keadaan sesuatu kes untuk memilih mana satu pandangan atau pendapat pakar-pakar yang wajar diterima jika pandangan atau pendapat pakar-pakar tersebut adalah bercanggah atau berbeza antara satu sama lain.

2. Fungsi untuk membuat sesuatu dapatan fakta adalah terletak pada mahkamah atau seorang hakim dan fungsi ini tidak boleh diserahkan kepada saksi pakar.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Keterangan ikut keadaan - Kecederaan tikaman tunggal di bahagian hadapan leher - Tertuduh adalah orang terakhir yang dilihat bersama si mati - Saksi telah melihat tertuduh bergelut dengan si mati di dalam kereta - Tertuduh dilihat melangkah mayat si mati dan mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat tanpa sebarang rasa kesal - Tertuduh cuba melarikan diri - Pembelaan mendakwa si mati membunuh diri - Sama ada kecederaan yang menyebabkan kematian si mati adalah akibat perbuatan tertuduh atau perbuatan si mati sendiri dengan niat untuk membunuh diri

KETERANGAN: Keterangan pakar - Percanggahan keterangan pakar - Budi bicara mahkamah - Pemilihan pandangan atau pendapat pakar - Percanggahan tentang naratif bagaimana si mati mengalami kecederaan yang membawa kepada kematiannya - Sama ada hakim bicara mempunyai budi bicara yang sepenuhnya untuk memilih pandangan pakar yang wajar diterima - Sama ada budi bicara untuk memilih pendapat pakar adalah berdasarkan fakta dan keadaan sesuatu kes - Sama ada fungsi untuk mendapatkan dapatan fakta boleh diserahkan kepada saksi pakar

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Naran Singh; T/n Naran Singh & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Nik Syahril Nik Ab Rahman, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2019] 1 LNS 601

PP lwn. MUHAMMAD LUDIN

Ketinggalan dalam menyatakan butiran penerimaan wang oleh tertuduh sama ada untuk diri sendiri atau bagi pihak orang lain di dalam pertuduhan bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan tidak menyebabkan kekeliruan, prejudis dan kegagalan keadilan kepada tertuduh untuk menyediakan pembelaan. Kegagalan tertuduh membuat bantahan berkenaan pertuduhan ketika perjalanan prosiding dan fakta bahawa tertuduh diwakili peguambela memberi kepastian bahawa tertuduh tidak pernah terkeliru dengan pertuduhan.

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pertuduhan - Ketinggalan butiran - Kesalahan di bawah s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan - Ketiadaan bantahan dibuat berkenaan kekeliruan pertuduhan ketika perjalanan prosiding - Tertuduh diwakili peguambela - Sama ada ketinggalan menyatakan penerimaan wang untuk diri tertuduh sendiri atau bagi pihak orang lain telah mengelirukan dan memprejudiskan tertuduh - Sama ada pertuduhan adalah cacat - Sama ada pertuduhan telah memberi notis yang mencukupi untuk tertuduh menyediakan pembelaan - Kanun Acara Jenayah, s. 156

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap pelepasan dan pembebasan - Pelepasan dan pembebasan di akhir kes pembelaan - Kesalahan di bawah s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan - Hakim bicara hanya menilai keterangan tertuduh - Hakim bicara memutuskan anggapan di bawah s. 50(3) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 ('SPRM') tidak perlu dipatahkan - Sama ada hakim bicara telah tersalah arah apabila tidak menilai keseluruhan keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua pihak pendakwaan dan pembelaan - Sama ada hakim bicara telah tersalah arah apabila memutuskan s. 50(3) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 tidak terpakai dalam pembelaan

  • Bagi pihak responden - Mohammad Farhan Maaruf; T/n Farhan Maaruf & Co
  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Mohamad Suffian Jaafar, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia

[2019] 1 LNS 1034

DESARU PEACE HOLDINGS CLUB SDN BHD v. MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD

An adjudicator must ensure that the directions that he has given are equally enforced against both parties and are complied with. The adjudicator will be in breach of the rules of natural justice and biased when he allows a party to file their cause papers beyond the directions given by him earlier and for ignoring the objections taken by the other party to the proceedings.

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Setting aside - Application to set aside adjudication decision - Breach of rules of natural justice - Adjudication reply filed beyond page limit which was set by adjudicator in his directions - Adjudicator  allowed one party to waive compliance of procedural rules that he had initially set - Adjudicator ignored objections of other party - Whether there was breach of rules of natural justice - Whether adjudicator acted in excess of his jurisdiction - Whether adjudicator must ensure that his directions were equally enforced against both parties - Whether adjudicator had breached his duty to act fairly and acted in a manner which was biased in favour of one party

  • For the plaintiff - Kuhendran Thanapalasingam & Suhanti Sivanesan; M/s Zul Rafique & Partners
  • For the defendant - RK Sharma & Phang Zheng Jack; M/s Vicknaraj, RD Ratnam & Rajesh Kumar & Associates

[2019] 1 LNS 1236

PP v. LETCHIMINAN TARIMUTHU

The Court has wide discretionary powers to alter or add to any charge. However, it is the obligation of the prosecution to bring a matter to the attention of the Court where a charge is to be altered or amended.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Amendment of - Charge relating to offence of possession of prohibited cigarettes - Discrepancies in number of cigarettes in charge - Power of court to alter or add to charge - Whether court has been conferred with wide discretionary powers to alter or add any charge - Whether court may alter or add to any charge on its own accord or upon application by the prosecution to amend charge - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 158

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Offence relating to possession of prohibited cigarettes under s. 135(1)(d) of Customs Act 1967 - Accused was acquitted and discharged at end of prosecution's case - Discrepancies in charge relating to number of cigarettes - Failure of prosecution to amend charge - Unexplained discrepancies - Prosecution failed to investigate another individual living in the room where exhibits were found - Whether amendment to number of cigarettes may result in a change to total value of exhibits - Whether prosecution had established prima facie case against accused - Whether prosecution had established that accused had exclusive possession of cigarettes - Whether prosecution's failure warranted acquittal and discharge of accused

  • For the appellant - Shahrina Nor Azman, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia; Bahagian Perundangan
  • For the respondent - P Sandrasegaran; M/s PS Segaran & Co

CLJ 2021 Volume 3 (Part 4)

Parties and solicitors to a suit had no business to disobey a court order, or to aid or abet a noncompliance, and in so doing, risk the prospect of being cited for contempt. When, therefore, the respondents and their solicitor herein, in disregard of the order of the Federal Court ordering them to cause the charge created on the applicant's properties to be discharged and to return the original title deeds to the applicant, have not only failed or refused to obey the order within the time stipulated, but went on to file, while continuing to disobey the order, and after a review application filed earlier by the previous solicitor had been struck off, another two separate applications to review the order and affirming thereby an affidavit questioning the validity and enforceability of the Federal Court order, and indeed accusing the apex court of bias, then both the respondents and the lawyer must be held to have been guilty of conduct which could be termed as recalcitrant, contumacious and disrespectful, and so, deserved to be cited for contempt and treated as contemnors. For the lawyer specifically and additionally, no refuge could be had in the argument that he was only acting professionally or following his clients' instructions, or that he is protected by s. 35(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976. Section 35(1) of the LPA merely deals with a lawyer's right to appear and plead in court; it does not protect a lawyer from contempt.
Golden Star & Ors v. Ling Peek Hoe & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 443 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Committal proceedings - Application for - Failure by proposed contemnors to obey Federal Court Order - Proceeded to file second and third review applications after first review application struck out without liberty to file afresh - Whether blatant disregard of Federal Court Order - Whether all avenue of appeal exhausted - Whether non-compliance of court order showcased total disregard and disrespect - Whether conduct and behaviour of advocate and solicitor contumacious and disrespectful - Whether contempt of court established

 

 

ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ

  • For the applicants - Hong Chong Hang & Edmund Lim; M/s Hong Chew King & Co
  • For the respondents - Chieng Lee Karn; M/s Chieng and Lum and Assocs
  • For Haniff Khatri - Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, Mohamad Reza Abu Hassan, Mohd Irzan Iswatt Mohd Noor & Mohamad Farhan Kamarudin; M/s Haniff Khatri

Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, which criminalises unnatural sex, is in contravention of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. The section, while providing for the offences against the 'precepts of Islam', is limited by the preclusion clause contained in the State List, ie, 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List'. Criminal law being a federal matter, is exclusively for Parliament to enact; and is beyond the legislative competency of the State Legislature.
Iki Putra Mubarrak v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 465 [FC]

|

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity of legislation - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 28 - Offence against 'precepts of Islam' - Challenge against competency of Selangor State Legislature to legislate offences against precepts of Islam - Whether qualified by phrase 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List' in item 1, List II, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether States restricted from making laws on subjects within domain of Parliament - Whether criminal law within domain of Parliament - Whether s. 28 enacted in contravention of item 1 of State List - Whether s. 28 inconsistent with Federal Constitution - Whether void

ISLAMIC LAW: Legislation - Validity of impugned legislation - Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, s. 28 - Offence against 'precepts of Islam' - Challenge against competency of Selangor State Legislature to legislate offences against precepts of Islam - Whether qualified by phrase 'except in regard to matters included in the Federal List' in item 1, List II, Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Whether States restricted from making laws on subjects within domain of Parliament - Whether criminal law within domain of Parliament - Whether s. 28 enacted in contravention of item 1 of State List - Whether s. 28 inconsistent with Federal Constitution - Whether void

 

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
ROHANA YUSUF PCA;
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ

  • For the petitioner - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Honey Tan, Surendra Ananth & Tay Kit Hoo; M/s Tan Law Practice
  • For the 1st respondent - Salim Soib, Nur Irmawatie Daud & Husna Abdul Halim; SFCs
  • For the 2nd respondent - Halimatunsa'adiah Abu Ahmad, Azlan Sulaiman & Yap Chen Hong; M/s Adi & Co
Amicus Curiae :
  • For Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan - Rahim Sinwan & Muhamad Hisham Marzuki; M/s Nailah Ramli & Partners
Watching brief:
  • For Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (Suhakam) - Andrew Khoo Chin Hock; M/s Andrew Khoo & Daniel Lo

A registered owner of a master title who subsequently subdivides the land and receives the full purchase price for the subdivided title, holds the title as bare trustee and is obliged in law to transfer the subdivided title to a subsequent purchaser who has given notice of the transfer to the registered owner.
Noraini Mohamed Hadi v. Pembangunan Tanah Dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 3 CLJ 518 [CA]

|

LAND LAW: Title - Subdivision - Claim for subdivided title - Plaintiff purchased part of land from first purchaser who purchased from original registered owner of master title - Land formed part of master title which was subsequently subdivided - Whether original registered owner bare trustee for plaintiff - Whether original registered owner accepted full purchase price from first purchaser - Whether original registered owner adopted, affirmed, recognised and ratified sale and purchase agreement - Whether proof of notice of purchase rebutted by original registered owner - Whether plaintiff bona fide purchaser - Whether original registered owner ought to transfer title to plaintiff

TRUSTS: Land - Sale - Claim for subdivided title - Plaintiff purchased part of land from first purchaser who purchased from original registered owner of master title - Land formed part of master title which was subsequently subdivided - Whether original registered owner accepted full purchase price from first purchaser - Whether original registered owner adopted, affirmed, recognised and ratified sale and purchase agreement - Whether original registered owner bare trustee for plaintiff - Whether plaintiff bona fide purchaser - Whether refusal to transfer land amounted to breach of trust

 

AHMADI ASNAWI JCA
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA

  • For the appellant - Muhammad Zahier; M/s Rosli Kamaruddin & Co
  • For the respondent - Russell Lua, HY Liew & SM Lau; M/s Lua & Mansor

When the handling of exhibits in the prosecution's case, sought to be returned by the owners, is found to be wanting in some aspects and there are blatant discrepancies leading to the exhibits being disputed, the police ought to be found liable for negligently handling the items and the claimants ought to be compensated. The existence of a duty of care could not be in any doubt as any item found to be used in the commission of an offence is required to be in the safe custody of the police for investigation and the subsequent prosecution (s. 413(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Inspektor M Yusof Jahaya & Ors v. Chin Hock Wa & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 571 [HC]

| | |

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Seizure - Procedure by police on seizure of property - Application under s. 413 of Criminal Procedure Code for return of items to jewellers - Dispute on exhibits - Whether there was breach of duty of care owed for items to be kept safe - Whether there was negligence in handling of jewellery items - Quantum of damages - Assessment of

TORT: Negligence - Seizure of property - Jewellery seized by police as exhibits in criminal proceedings - Whether items found to be used in commission of offence required to be in safe custody of police for investigation and subsequent prosecution - Application under s. 413 of Criminal Procedure Code for return of items to jewellers - Dispute on exhibits - Whether there was breach of duty of care owed to jewellers for items to be kept safe - Whether there was negligence in handling of jewellery items - Quantum of damages - Assessment of

POLICE: Powers - Seizure of property - Jewellery seized by police as exhibits in criminal proceedings - Whether items found to be used in commission of offence required to be in safe custody of police for investigation and subsequent prosecution - Application under s. 413 of Criminal Procedure Code for return of items to jewellers - Dispute on exhibits - Whether there was breach of duty of care owed to jewellers for items to be kept safe - Whether there was negligence in handling of jewellery items - Quantum of damages - Assessment of

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Cause of action - Pleadings - Whether cause of action expressly pleaded in statement of claim - Whether necessary to plead elements constituting negligence - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 12(1), O. 18 r. 8(1)(a) - Whether complied with

ALICE LOKE YEE CHING JC

  • For the appellants/defendants - Syahriah Shapiee; FC
  • For the respondents/plaintiffs - Mohd Din Gilaldin Khan; M/s Din & Assocs

A self-identification order, also known as a 'Spartacus' or 'I am Spartacus' order may be issued to compel persons unknown to identify himself/herself and to provide an address for service. The self-identification order would require placing an advertisement in local newspapers of a notice against the person(s) unknown and this notice would alert the persons unknown of the order for them to self-identify within seven days of the advertisement, failing which, they risk committal proceedings.
Zschimmer & Schwarz GmbH & Co KG Chemische Fabriken v. Persons Unknown & Anor (No 2) [2021] 3 CLJ 587 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Writ and statement of claim - Amendment - Application to add additional defendants to suit - Whether proposed defendants would prejudice existing defendants - Whether application would change nature of suit if allowed - Whether necessary to add proposed defendants as parties to suit - Whether dispute could be completely determined with addition of proposed defendants - Whether proposed defendants closely connected to reliefs and remedies claimed in suit - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Proprietary injunction - Application for - Application against proposed defendants - Whether there was serious issue to be tried on merits - Whether balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction - Whether just and convenient to grant injunction

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Mareva freezing injunction - Application for - Application against proposed defendants - Whether there was good arguable case - Whether proposed defendants have assets within jurisdiction - Whether there was risk of assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Self-identification order - Push payment fraud - Plaintiff defrauded by persons unknown - Proprietary and Mareva freezing injunctions obtained against persons unknown - Whether court ought to grant self-identification order - Whether necessary - Whether effective in alerting persons unknown to reveal themselves - Whether applicable in fraud cases

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Service - Substituted service - Whether defendant likely to be evading service after being aware of suit - Whether personal service impracticable - Whether application for substituted service ought to be allowed - Whether application would prejudice defendant if allowed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 62 r. 5(1)

 

 

ONG CHEE KWAN JC

  • For the plaintiff - Lee Shih & Pang Huey Lynn; M/s Lim Chee Wee Partnership
  • For the intervener - Eng Kar Wei; M/s Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong

CLJ 2021 Volume 3 (Part 5)

(i) Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950 provides for presumptions of facts in publication of contents on the Internet to assist in identifying and in proving the identity of an anonymous person involved in the publication through the Internet. Although the prosecution need not prove the existence of the basic facts before invoking such presumption, the presumption is rebuttable and must be proved on a balance of probabilities;
(ii) With the invocation of the presumptions, online portals/platforms that contain offensive comments can be held liable for facilitating the publication of such comments. In order to avoid liability, these online platforms/portals must have in place a system that is capable of detecting and rapidly removing offensive comments. Portals/platforms cannot just wait to be alerted by their online subscribers because such alert may never come and this would unjustifiably and irresponsibly shift the entire blame on third party online subscribers while exonerating itself of all liabilities.
Peguam Negara Malaysia v. Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 603 [FC]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Contempt - Committal proceedings - Application for - Application for committal proceedings by Attorney General against online news portal ('respondents') - Respondents published article on re-opening of courts - Third party subscribers of portal left comments criticising courts and Judiciary and implying Chief Justice was corrupt - Whether respondents had knowledge of impugned comments - Whether respondents facilitated publication of comments - Whether presumption under s. 114A of Evidence Act 1950 could be invoked - Whether respondents presumed to be publishers of comments - Whether prima facie case for contempt of court established - Whether intention to publish must be proven  

CRIMINAL LAW: Contempt - Committal proceedings - Committal proceedings by Attorney General against online news portal ('respondents') - Defence - Respondents published article - Third party subscribers of portal left comments criticising courts and Judiciary and implying Chief Justice was corrupt - Whether compliance with Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code ('MCMCC') defence against any action or prosecution in court or other forum - Whether respondent complied with MCMCC and afforded defence under law - Whether respondents not required to monitor activities of users and subscribers until being prompted by complaints - Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, ss. 98 & 99

EVIDENCE: Presumption - Presumption of facts - Publication of contents on Internet - Application for committal proceedings by Attorney General against online news portal ('respondents') - Respondents published article on re-opening of courts - Third party subscribers of portal left comments criticising courts and Judiciary and implying Chief Justice was corrupt - Whether respondents facilitated publication of impugned comments - Whether respondents had knowledge of comments - Whether presumption under s. 114A of Evidence Act 1950 could be invoked - Whether respondents could be presumed to be publishers of comments - Whether prima facie case for contempt of court established - Whether intention to publish must be proven - Whether requirements under s. 114A(1) of Evidence Act 1950 satisfied

 

ROHANA YUSUF PCA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ

  • For the applicant - Suzana Atan, Narkunavathy Sundareson & Noor Atiqah Zainal Abidin; SFCs
  • For the respondents - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Surendra Ananth & Khoo Suk Chyi; M/s Surendra Ananth & M/s Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
Watching brief:
  • For the Bar Council - Joy Wilson Appukuttan; M/s KH Lim & Co
  • For the International Federation of Journalist (IFJ) and National Journalist Union of Malaysia (NJUM) - New Sin Yew; M/s AmerBON
  • For the Centre for Independent Journalism and Gerakan Media Merdeka - Yusmadi Yusoff; M/s Fahda Nur & Yusmadi

(i) In disciplinary proceedings involving an advocate and solicitor, where the end result could lead to the advocate and solicitor being suspended or struck off the Roll, the Disciplinary Board and the Disciplinary Committee must properly evaluate all evidence and weigh them with utmost care;
(ii) Where the solicitor had merely acted as the transaction solicitor and not a party to the agreement, imposing the obligation on the solicitor to pay the purchase price would lead to a change in the law of obligations by extending it beyond the contracting parties.
Sithradevi Nagalingam v. Masdar Darman & Anor; Majlis Peguam Malaysia (Intervener) [2021] 3 CLJ 677 [FC]

LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings - Complaint against solicitor - Disciplinary Committee ('DC') proceeded with hearing in absence of solicitor - Whether solicitor given proper notification of hearing date - Whether solicitor given right to be heard - Whether there was breach of fundamental rule - Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 100(1)(b), 109 & 138

LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings - Complaint against solicitor - Disciplinary Board struck solicitor off Roll of Advocates and Solicitors upon recommendation of Disciplinary Committee ('DC') - Complaint on non-payment of balance sum for sale of land - Whether solicitor party to agreement - Whether liability could be cast on solicitor to pay for purchase price - Whether misconduct by solicitor proven - Whether DC properly evaluated all evidence presented - Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 100(1)(b), 109 & 138

 

 

ROHANA YUSUF PCA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ

  • For the appellant - M Manoharan; M/s M Manoharan & Co
  • For the respondents - Abdul Razak Abu Bakar; M/s Rafida Razak & Co
  • For the intervener - Lee Tze Jiun & Wong Seah Fong; M/s Zairina Loh & Wong

(i) The word 'property' in an offence under s. 29(1) of the Minor Offences Act 1955 hinges upon the word 'possession', in that, the property must have been in the possession of the accused person; 
(ii) Money deposited in the account holder's bank account was money of the bank and is a chose in action; thus, the charges framed against the accused person, for failure to account for the monies in her bank account, were defective as they failed to disclose an offence under s. 29(1) of the Act and were thus wrongful and illegal.
Harpajan Kaur Delib Singh v. PP [2021] 3 CLJ 704 [HC]

| |

CRIMINAL LAW: Charges - Criminal charges - Offences under s. 29(1) of Minor Offences Act 1955 - Whether charges specified ingredients of s. 29(1) - Failure by accused person to give satisfactory explanation for large amounts of money found in bank account - Whether offence relates to 'fraudulent possession of property' - Absence of definition for 'property' or 'anything' - Whether 'property' must be able to be in possession of accused - Whether money in bank account was money of bank - Whether money in account recognised as chose in action - Whether account holder not in possession of money in account - Whether charge defective - Whether conviction of accused person a nullity

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charges - Framing of - Offences under s. 29(1) of Minor Offences Act 1955 - Failure by accused person to give satisfactory explanation for large amounts of money found in bank account - Whether there can be 'possession' of monies in bank account - Whether money in bank account recognised as chose in action - Whether chose in action not 'thing' within contemplation and scope of 'possession' and 'property' under s. 29(1) - Whether charges based on fundamentally flawed understanding and application of law - Whether accused person misled and prejudiced - Whether charges defective - Whether curable by s. 156 or s. 422 of Criminal Procedure Code

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - Minor Offences Act 1955, s. 29(1) - Whether word 'property' under s. 29(1) includes monies held in bank account - Whether there can be 'possession' of monies in bank account - Absence of definition for 'property' or 'anything' - Whether 'property' must be able to be in possession of accused - Whether account holder not in possession of money in bank - Whether money in bank account recognised as chose in action - Whether chose in action not 'thing' within contemplation and scope of 'possession' and 'property' under s. 29(1) - Whether charge defective - Whether conviction of accused person a nullity

MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC

  • For the appellant - Gunaseelan S Thambinathan, Balwant Singh Purba Singh & Eng Yuh Pei; M/s Chan Eng & Co
  • For the respondent - Yasinnisa Begam Seeni Mohideen; DPP

(1) A mosque in a police camp, where the accused was found to have been in possession of offensive weapons, was a public place where members of the public could have access to worship and its usage was not restricted to only members of the camp. Hence, the ingredients of the charge against the accused were fulfilled and the accused was found guilty under s. 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958.
(2) The three options (i) a right to remain silent; (ii) a right to give unsworn evidence and (iii) a right to give sworn evidence, as required under s. 173(ha) of the Criminal Procedure Code, had been explained to the accused and even where there was a failure to do so, it would not prejudice the accused if he was represented by counsel.
Muhamed Khairul Akmar Mohamed Shahid v. PP [2021] 3 CLJ 725 [HC]

|

CRIMINAL LAW: Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 - Section 6(1) - Possession of small curved knife and machete - Whether place where offence took place fell within meaning of 'public place' - Interpretation of - Whether requirements under s. 173(ha) of Criminal Procedure Code fulfilled - Whether ingredients of charge met

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Appeal against - Accused found guilty of being in possession of offensive weapons - Whether ingredients of charge met - Whether requirements under s. 173(ha) of Criminal Procedure Code fulfilled - Mitigating and aggravating circumstances considered - Whether there was reason to disturb sentence

 

SU TIANG JOO JC

  • For the appellant - Ranjit Singh Sandhu & Privesh Paul Singh; M/s Ranjit Singh Sandhu & Co
  • For the respondent - Maziyah Mansor; DPP

The fiction 'John Doe' had been used in several Malaysian cases when, at the point of filing the writ and statement of claim, a plaintiff has no knowledge of the identity of the defendant. However, upon the discovery of the identity of the defendant, a plaintiff may apply to amend his pleadings to substitute 'John Doe' to the actual name of the defendant so long as the application is bona fide, does not prejudice the defendant and does not alter the body of the statement of claim. The amendment is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute may be effectually and completely adjudicated upon on its merits.
Nabilah Mohamad Zawahid v. John/Jane Doe 1 & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 739 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Amendment - Application for - Amendment to statement of claim - Amendment to substitute names of defendants - Defendants initially cited as John/Jane Doe in statement of claim due to unknown identities - Plaintiff sought to amend and substitute names of defendants from John/Jane Doe to actual names upon finding out identities - Whether amendment necessary - Whether amendments would change body of statement of claim - Whether application bona fide - Whether defendants would be prejudiced if amendment allowed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 20 r. 1

LIMITATION: Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Section 2(a) - Action against public authority - When cause of action arose - Whether action brought within time frame of 36 months as statutorily provided - Whether action time-barred

 

ANSELM CHARLES FERNANDIS JC

  • For the appellant - R Norhajjah Raja Ahmad Shaari Ramozan; M/s Intan Ridzuwan Raja Norhajjah & Co
  • For the respondents - Husni Fairos Ramy; SFC

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER IN SELECTED DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: AN OVERVIEW [Read excerpt]
    by Adillah Othman[i] Mariani Ariffin[ii] Sa'odah Ahmad[iii] [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxxviii

  2. [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxxviii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER IN SELECTED DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: AN OVERVIEW

    by
    Adillah Othman[i]
    Mariani Ariffin[ii]
    Sa'odah Ahmad[iii]

    ABSTRACT

    Ensuring safe drinking water is one of the global challenges faced today. Many countries have come out with various policies, plans, and strategies to deal with this issue. This article presents an overview of the implementation of a multi-barrier approach ("MBA") for safe drinking water in Canada, Australia, and several countries in the European Union ("EU"). A "systematic review" of the previous literature has been employed to discover patterns and ideas concerning MBA implementation. The MBA is strongly advocated by the Water Safety Plans ("WSP") released by the World Health Organization ("WHO") because it would increase the safety of drinking water due to multiple protections in the water supply system. Source water protection is very fundamental in MBA because the cost of removing contaminants by water treatment could be reduced if preventive measures are considered as early as at the source water stage.

    . . .

    [i] Department of Environment, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor. Corresponding author: adillahothman@gmail.com.

    [ii] Department of Environment, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor.

    [iii] Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. PRIVACY AND ETHICAL CONCERNS WITH MYSEJAHTERA MOBILE CONTACT TRACING APP [Read excerpt]
    by Matthew Sebastian* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxxix

  4. [2021] 1 LNS(A) xxxix
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    PRIVACY AND ETHICAL CONCERNS WITH MYSEJAHTERA MOBILE CONTACT TRACING APP

    by
    Matthew Sebastian*

    1. INTRODUCTION

    This article is aimed at addressing the legal and ethical implications of the use of the MySejahtera mobile contact tracing app and to examine the possible impact to privacy and confidentiality of individuals in using the application.

    The article will examine the purposes of the app, the functionality of the app, as well as the safeguards that have been implemented to protect privacy of individuals. The article will then analyse whether the purposes and functions of the app are adequately tuned to counter possible conflicts with the liberty and privacy of individuals in Malaysia.

    The article will assess the legal and ethical implications of the widespread use of the MySejahtera app. The article will then look to build on major developments in the use of mobile contact tracing apps globally as a comparative tool on how to improve the MySejahtera app and mitigate risks to fundamental rights and liberties that may be intertwined with the usage of MySejahtera.

    . . .

    *Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. EUTHANASIA: RIGHT TO LIFE AS OPPOSED TO RIGHT TO PERSONAL AUTONOMY [Read excerpt]
    by Noor Akmal Binti Mustafa Kamal* Prof. Madya Dr. Shahrul Mizan Ismail** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xl

  6. [2021] 1 LNS(A) xl
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    EUTHANASIA: RIGHT TO LIFE AS OPPOSED TO RIGHT TO PERSONAL AUTONOMY

    by
    Noor Akmal Binti Mustafa Kamal*
    Prof. Madya Dr. Shahrul Mizan Ismail**

    ABSTRACT

    Euthanasia has become one of the most significant topics of debate not only in legal medicine but also in the criminal law context in many countries. In fact, it remains unlawful according to religions and is considered an immoral practice. In certain parts of the world, the right to die with dignity is considered as a part of natural human rights. However, according to the rest of the world, euthanasia is unlawful and even sinful in some religions. The researcher applies a qualitative research approach, to observe and analyse the relevant documents, and to explore the definitions, concepts and legality of euthanasia in Western and non-Western countries, including the Islamic perspective. The researcher applies the non-doctrinal approach with the aim of discussing the clash of values on the acceptance and practice of euthanasia between Western and the Eastern countries. This research aims to promote better understanding on the concept of a human's right to life and the impact of euthanasia on society.

    . . .

    * LL.B (Hons) (IIUM), Postgraduate Student in the Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM); Senior Federal Counsel, Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia.

    ** LL.B (Hons) (IIUM), LL.M (Human Rights) (Nottingham), Ph.D (UKM); Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya) (Non-practising); Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM).


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 831 Finance Act 2020 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 -
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 828 National Land Code (Revised 2020) 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 -
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1634 Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 Not Yet In Force ACT 502
ACT A1633 Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 Not Yet In Force ACT 791
ACT A1632 Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] ACT 807
ACT A1631 Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] ACT 806
ACT A1630 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] ACT 438

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 129/2021 National Land Code (Underground Land) (Application Forms) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 24 March 2021 1 April 2021 PU(A) 205/1997
PU(A) 128/2021 Strata Titles (Amendment of Fifth Schedule) Order 2021 24 March 2021 1 April 2021 ACT 318
PU(A) 127/2021 Currency (Registration Requirements) Order 2021 23 March 2021 24 March 2021 ACT 827
PU(A) 126/2021 Employees Provident Fund (Fund Management Institution) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 23 March 2021 1 May 2021 PU(A) 381/2016
PU(A) 125/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 22 March 2021 22 March 2021 PU(A) 98/2021

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 170/2021 Appointment Under Subsection 134(2) 24 March 2021 25 March 2021 ACT 53
PU(B) 169/2021 Notice To Third Parties 24 March 2021 25 March 2021 ACT 613
PU(B) 168/2021 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members of The National Wages Consultative Council 24 March 2021 25 March 2021 ACT 732
PU(B) 167/2021 Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 24 March 2021 26 March 2021 to 8 April 2021 ACT 235
PU(B) 166/2021 Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 24 March 2021 1 April 2021 to 30 April 2021 ACT 235

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
AKTA 318 Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 PU(A) 128/2021 1 April 2021 Jadual Kelima
ACT 318 Strata Titles Act 1985 PU(A) 128/2021 1 April 2021 Fifth Schedule
PU(A) 381/2016 Employees Provident Fund (Fund Management Institution) Regulations 2016 PU(A) 126/2021 1 May 2021 Schedule
PU(A) 98/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan) (No. 3) 2021 PU(A) 125/2021 22 Mac 2021 Jadual Pertama
PU(A) 98/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 125/2021 22 March 2021 First Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 66/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan) (No. 2) 2021 PU(A) 98/2021 5 Mac 2021
PU(A) 66/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 98/2021 5 March 2021
PU(A) 65/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 3) 2021 PU(A) 97/2021 5 Mac 2021
PU(A) 65/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 97/2021 5 March 2021
PU(A) 64/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan) (No. 3) 2021 PU(A) 96/2021 5 Mac 2021