Back to Top

Issue #32/2019
08 August 2019

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. AMBANK (M) BHD & ORS v. LIM SUE BENG [2019] 7 CLJ 289

  2. Appeal Updates

    1. Appeal Updates

  3. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2019 Volume 7 (Part 3)

  4. Articles

    1. LNS Article(s)

    2. CLJ 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

AMBANK (M) BHD & ORS v. LIM SUE BENG [2019] 7 CLJ 289
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED FCJ, BALIA YUSOF WAHI FCJ, ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ, ROHANA YUSUF FCJ, MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 03-1-03-2018(W)]
15 MAY 2019

An amendment to a bankruptcy notice to remove the name of one co-petitioner under s. 93(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 is not permissible as it would change the character of a bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition causing prejudice to the respondent

BANKRUPTCY: Notice – Amendment – Application by one co-petitioner to cease to be a party in bankruptcy proceedings – Whether court allowed to remove references to co-petitioner – Whether amendments would have effect of changing bankruptcy notice – Whether exercise of High Court’s powers under s. 93(3) of Bankruptcy Act 1967 limited to clerical or minor errors that cause no prejudice to judgment debtor – Whether amendment would change character of bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties – Amendment – Application by one co-petitioner to cease to be a party in bankruptcy proceedings – Whether court allowed to remove references to co-petitioner – Whether amendments would have effect of changing bankruptcy notice – Whether exercise of High Court’s powers under s. 93(3) of Bankruptcy Act 1967 limited to clerical or minor errors that cause no prejudice to judgment debtor – Whether amendment would change character of bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Abdullah Atan lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 285 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Abdullah Atan [Perbicaraan Jenayah No: 45A-34-10/2016]

  2. Samim Sainsha v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 360 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Samim Sainsha [Criminal Trial No: 45A-11-02/2014]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 635

MUHAMMAD AFANDI MUKHTAR v. PP

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentencing - Appeal - Conviction for offences of robbery - Sentence of 9 years, 2 whippings - Whether sentence adequate - Whether sentence reflected gravity and severity of offence - Plea of guilty and use of dangerous weapon in committing offence considered - Sentencing trend for this type of offence -Whether appellate intervention required

  • For the appellant - Mohd Ridzuan Muhammad; M/s Mohd Fadzli & Co
  • For the respondent - DPP Hajarul Falenna Itah Abu Bakar Adli; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan

[2018] 1 LNS 778

KASI KL PALANIAPPAN v. CYBERVIEW SDN BHD & ANOR

LAND LAW: Restrictions in dealings - Private caveat - Extension of private caveat - Whether plaintiff has caveatable interest - Plaintiff relied on sale and purchase agreement with first defendant and developer - Deposit of 10% purchase price paid by plaintiff - Balance of purchase price not paid within stipulated time - Several requests for extension of time made by plaintiff - Whether caveat should remain on land - National Land Code 1965, ss. 322, 323, 326, 327

  • For the plaintiff - SC Ho; M/s Wilson Wong Tan
  • For the first defendant - Eric Clement; M/s Abd Halim Ushah & Associates
  • For the second defendant - Mohd Aizan; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor

[2018] 1 LNS 923

LOW BOON ENG & ORS v. TEO KIONG HUAT & ORS & ANOTHER APPEAL

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Limitation - Whether statute-barred - Whether limitation period applicable to fraudulent breach of trust - Whether limitation period applicable to Institutional trusts - Limitation Act 1953, s. 22(1)(b)

TRUSTS: Constructive trustee - Types of constructive trustees - The difference between constructive trustee arising from operation of law and one arising from implication of fraud - Whether limitation period applicable - Limitation Act 1953, s. 22(1)(b)

TRUSTS: Constructive trust - Purchase of shares by appellants and respondents in company that owns third appellant - Purchase of shares in joint venture exercise with shareholdings of 4,000,002 shares (including 2 founding shares) to appellants and 4,000,000 shares to respondents - Whether two founding shares belong to appellants - Intentions of the respective groups when they decided to purchase shares - Whether two founding shares should be neutralized by claiming back one founding share - Whether neutralizing one founding share should be premised on concept of constructive trust

  • For the appellant - M David Morais & Vince Chong & Raul Lee Bhaskaran; M/s Nik Hussain & Partners
  • For the respondent - Meyappan Pillai & Alvin Teo Sze Pin; M/s Mak Ng Shao & Kee

[2018] 1 LNS 447

KHAIRUL NORDIN lwn. PP

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Kematian si mati disebabkan luka incise di bahagian perut akibat tikaman pisau - Sama ada niat tertuduh boleh dibuktikan secara inferen melalui keterangan dan perlakuan tertuduh dan dari jenis kecederaan - Sama ada kecederaan fatal akibat tusukan yang kuat adalah keterangan yang mencukupi untuk membuktikan niat untuk menyebabkan bencana tubuh ke atas simati - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai niat untuk menyebabkan kematian ke atas simati

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Pertahanan persendirian - Pertengkaran dan pergaduhan - Tertuduh dilihat memegang pisau dan sarung pisau di kedua-dua tangan - Simati tidak memegang sebarang senjata sebelum berlaku pergelutan - Sama ada tertuduh berada dalam situasi ancaman ke atas nyawanya atau keselamatannya - Sama ada tertuduh telah mengambil peluang yang tidak berpatutan apabila menggunakan pisau untuk menikam simati - Sama ada tertuduh berhak kepada perlindungan hak pertahanan persendirian yang diperuntukkan di bawah s. 300 Kanun Keseksaan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Asmawi & Nur Asmawi; T/n I Asmawi & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Norinna Bahaddun, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2018] 1 LNS 188

MOHAMAD AZHAR YUSSOH lwn. MOHAMAD HAIRUL ALHAFIZ ZAN IMI & SATU LAGI DAN SATU LAGI KES

LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Penentuan liabiliti - Perlanggaran antara dua motosikal - Perlanggaran berlaku ketika motosikal defendan mengubah laluan dari kiri ke kanan secara tiba-tiba - Sama ada defendan mempunyai tugas untuk berhati-hati sekiranya ingin mengubah haluan - Sama ada defendan telah bertindak secara cuai semasa menunggang motosikal sehinggakan berlakunya kemalangan - Sama ada terdapat ruang untuk plaintif mengelak kemalangan - Sama ada defendan wajar dikenakan tanggungan cuai sepenuhnya

GANTI RUGI: Ganti rugi am - Taksiran - Kehilangan deria tubuh - Deria bau - Usia muda - Sama ada jumlah sebanyak RM30,000 adalah awad yang munasabah

  • Bagi pihak perayu kes AA-12B-19-05/2017 dan bagi pihak responden kes AA-12B-22-05/2017 - Nur Aleeya Aria Nyakot Abdullah; T/n Sivaraja & Co
  • Bagi pihak perayu-perayu kes AA-12B-22-05/2017 dan bagi pihak responden-responden kes AA-12B-19-05/2017 - Fazilah Sudin; T/n Imtiaz Choong & Partners

CLJ 2019 Volume 7 (Part 3)

FEDERAL COURT

An amendment to a bankruptcy notice to remove the name of one co-petitioner under s. 93(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 is not permissible as it would change the character of a bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition causing prejudice to the respondent
AmBank (M) Bhd & Ors v. Lim Sue Beng [2019] 7 CLJ 289 [FC]

 |

BANKRUPTCY: Notice - Amendment - Application by one co-petitioner to cease to be a party in bankruptcy proceedings - Whether court allowed to remove references to co-petitioner - Whether amendments would have effect of changing bankruptcy notice - Whether exercise of High Court's powers under s. 93(3) of Bankruptcy Act 1967 limited to clerical or minor errors that cause no prejudice to judgment debtor - Whether amendment would change character of bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Amendment - Application by one co-petitioner to cease to be a party in bankruptcy proceedings - Whether court allowed to remove references to co-petitioner - Whether amendments would have effect of changing bankruptcy notice - Whether exercise of High Court's powers under s. 93(3) of Bankruptcy Act 1967 limited to clerical or minor errors that cause no prejudice to judgment debtor - Whether amendment would change character of bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition

Azahar Mohamed, Balia Yusof Wahi, Alizatul Khair Osman, Rohana Yusuf, Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJJ

  • For the appellants - Lua Ai Siew & Elyazura Md Shaarani; M/s Soo Thien Ming & Nashrah
  • For the respondent - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Tony Woon Yeow Thong & Chan Wei June; M/s Woon & Co

COURT OF APPEAL

Res judicata applies in cases where a similar cause of action is brought on the same subject matter, even though the reliefs sought in the first suit are different from the second suit, and the parties in the second suit are different from the first suit.
Metreco Industries Sdn Bhd v. Muhammad Fadhil Ab Wahid & Another Appeal [2019] 7 CLJ 312 [CA]

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Plaintiff commenced second suit after first suit struck out by court - Second suit involved similar cause of action on same subject matter against same party for different reliefs - Whether res judicata - Whether decision in first suit final - Whether binding on court - Whether issues already determined could be raised by parties in subsequent suit - Failure to appeal against order in first suit - Whether amounted to concession that decision in first suit correct - Whether attempt to circumvent appeal procedure deliberate - Whether abuse of court process

 

Nallini Pathmanathan, Badariah Sahamid, Zabariah Mohd Yusof JJCA

  • (Civil Appeal No: B-02(IM)(NCVC)-143-01-2018)
  • For the appellant - Normaslina Abdul Fuad & Mohd Azzamuddin Shah Yaakup; M/s BH Gan Nor & Kim
  • For the respondent - Nur Sazila Abd Halim; M/s Iza Ng Yeoh & Kit
  • (Civil Appeal No: B-02(IM)(NCVC)-396-02-2018)
  • For the appellant - Normaslina Abdul Fuad & Mohd Azzamauddin Shah Yaakup; M/s BH Gan, Nor & Kim
  • For the respondent - Hasmaliza Othman; M/s Fairuz Adiba & Partners

In order for a claimant to succeed in its claim, the claimant must show that the loss and damages are due to the breach of contract or negligence by the defendant. Once that is established, the claimant has the additional burden of proving the damages
Tetuan Bahari Choy & Nongchik v. Harta Megajaya Sdn Bhd [2019] 7 CLJ 332 [CA]

 |

LEGAL PROFESSION: Duty of care - Professional negligence - Solicitor acted for client in transactions concerning loan and sale and purchase agreement - Solicitor failed to advise client that loan could not be utilised to settle redemption sum due because of existence of private caveats on land - Whether amounted to professional negligence - Whether there was conflict of interest when solicitor acted for both borrower and bank - Whether liability proved

LEGAL PROFESSION: Conflict of interest - Solicitor acted for bank and borrower in loan transaction - Whether amounted to conflict of interest

DAMAGES: General and special damages - Claim for - Claim for special damages by client following solicitor's professional negligence - Whether claim proved - Whether claim for damages supported by evidence

Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Kamaludin Md Said JJCA

  • For the appellant - Ong Siew Wan; M/s Andrew - David Wong & Ong
  • For the respondent - T Gunaseelan & Ikmal Hisam Idris; M/s Gunaseelan & Assocs

The defence of insanity is not available to an accused who was not labouring under any form of unsoundness of mind and knew that the nature of what he did was against the law.
Tiong Ing Soon v. PP [2019] 7 CLJ 341 [CA]

 

CRIMINAL LAW: Murder - Defence - Insanity - Mens rea during commission of murder - Whether defence of insanity concerned with legal responsibility or medical insanity - Whether accused suffered psychiatric condition that impaired cognitive faculties at material time so as to be classified as medically insane - Whether incapable of knowing nature of act - Whether acts of accused consistent with conduct of intelligent person with clear presence of mind - Whether defence of insanity available - Penal Code, ss. 84 & 302

 

Abdul Rahman Sebli, Rhodzariah Bujang, Kamaludin Md Said JJCA

  • For the appellants - Wee Wui Kiat; M/s Batternberg & Talma Advocs
  • For the respondent - Mohd Zain Ibrahim & Jasmee Hameeza; DPPs

Section 368A(1) of the Companies Act 1965 may only be invoked by the Registrar or by a person whose interests were either affected or would be affected; it was therefore imperative that the respondents state how the conduct of the appellant affected their interests
Wong Kien Ching v. Seng Kim Huat & Anor [2019] 7 CLJ 356 [CA]

 |

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Injunctions - Application for orders under s. 368A(1) and (4) of Companies Act 1965 - Compelling appellant to deliver to official receiver or liquidators issue documents of title pertaining to native titles and subleases - Whether application fell within terms of s. 368A - Whether respondents/petitioners entitled to utilise s. 368A for purpose of wrenching titles from appellant - Whether petitioners' interests affected by conduct of appellant - Whether there was allegation of contravention of Companies Act 1965 - Whether reliefs under s. 368A available

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Companies Act 1965 - Section 368A(1) and (4) - Whether properly construed by courts - Whether s. 368A(1) may only be invoked by Registrar or by person whose interests were either affected or would be affected by such conduct - Whether there must be allegation of contravention of Companies Act 1965 with specific provision identified - Whether reliefs under s. 368A available

 

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Mary Lim, Yaacob Md Sam JJCA

  • For the appellants - Serena Liew Chun Yean; M/s Serena Liew & Assocs
  • For the respondents - Norbert Yapp; M/s Norbert Yapp & Assocs
  • For the liquidators - Catherine SP Chau; M/s Catherine Chau & Assocs

HIGH COURT

The income of a doctor derived from his incorporated medical business under a Resident Consultant Agreement with a private hospital, being a contract for services, is taxable as individual income under s. 4(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 and not the company’s income.
Dato' Dr Singaraveloo Muthusamy & Anor v. Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif/Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Anor [2019] 7 CLJ 370 [HC]

 |

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application to quash decision - Agreement between doctor and hospital - Doctor practised as registered specialist medical practitioner at hospital - Doctor paid rental of clinic at hospital and hospital paid for medical services rendered by doctor - Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') decided that income received by doctor taxable as individual income - Whether agreement was contract for service between doctor and hospital - Whether DGIR empowered to raise any assessment or additional assessment under Income Tax Act 1967 - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 4(a), 91(1)

REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Interpretation of - Agreement between doctor and hospital - Doctor practised as registered specialist medical practitioner at hospital - Doctor paid rental of clinic at hospital and hospital paid for medical services rendered by doctor - Whether agreement was contract for service between doctor and hospital - Whether income received by doctor taxable as individual income - Whether Director General of Inland Revenue empowered to raise any assessment or additional assessment under Income Tax Act 1967 - Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 4(a), 91(1)

Azizah Nawawi J

  • For the applicants - T Sudhar & Tanya Edward; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
  • For the respondents - Ahmad Isyak Mohd Hassan (PKH); FC

Kegagalan Lembaga Penasihat mendengar permohonan representasi yang dibuat oleh orang tahanan di bawah s. 9(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 adalah satu ketidakpatuhan prosedur yang mencacatkan syor Lembaga kepada Yang di-PertuanAgong di bawah kk. 5(3) dan 5(4) Peraturan Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) (Prosedur Lembaga Penasihat) 1987. Ia boleh menyebabkan penahanan orang tahanan diisytiharkan tak sah dan batal
Gan Ah Som lwn. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Yang Lain [2019] 7 CLJ 385 [HC]

 

TAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Habeas corpus - Tahanan di bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Representasi - Representasi ke Lembaga Penasihat - Sama ada suatu hak yang wajib diberi kepada orang tahanan - Kegagalan Lembaga Penasihat mendengar representasi - Sama ada suatu ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada menjejaskan syor yang dibuat kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong - Sama ada perintah habeas corpus perlu dikeluarkan - Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ss. 6(1), 9(1), 10(1) - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 151(1)(a)

TAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Habeas corpus - Tahanan di bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 - Lembaga Penasihat - Peranan dan fungsi - Sama ada berkewajipan mendengar representasi orang tahanan - Sama ada perlu mendengar representasi sebelum membuat syor kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong - Kegagalan mendengar representasi - Sama ada suatu ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada pemohon berhak dibebaskan - Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ss. 6(1), 9(1), 10(1) - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 151(1)(a) - Peraturan/Tatacara Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-langkah Pencegahan Khas) (Prosedur Lembaga Penasihat) 1987, kk. 5(3) dan 5(4)

 

Abd Halim Aman H

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Low Huey Theng; T/n Sivananthan
  • Bagi pihak responden - Muhd Firdaus Yaacob; TPR

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. MALAYSIA: A NEW HOPE (AND SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT CAME WITH IT)* [Read excerpt]
    by NIMALAN DEVARAJA** [2019] 1 LNS(A) ci

  2. [2019] 1 LNS(A) ci
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    MALAYSIA: A NEW HOPE (AND SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT CAME WITH IT)*

    by
    NIMALAN DEVARAJA**

    May 9, 2018. A day that will be forever etched in the memories of Malaysians who witnessed the 14th General Elections (“GE14”). It was the day on which Malaysians witnessed, for the first time since the country’s independence, a change in government. The 61-year-old Barisan Nasional coalition (and its predecessor, the Alliance Party), long synonymous with Malaysia, were ousted from power by the barely two-year old Pakatan Harapan coalition.

    While we have witnessed with excitement or trepidation (depending on who is asked) the rise of interesting (and possibly controversial) developments in the Malaysian fabric since the change of government, the period leading up to, and immediately after, GE14 was also not without its share of dramatic events.

    . . .

    *© 2018 Skrine. This Article was first published in issue 2/2018 of Legal Insights, a Skrine Newsletter. Reproduced with permission of Skrine.

    **Nimalan is a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution Division of SKRINE. His main practice areas include arbitration, corporate and commercial litigation, and constitutional, public and administrative law.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. THE MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION* [Read excerpt]
    by TENGKU AHMAD HAZRI [2019] 1 LNS(A) xcix

  4. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xcix
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    THE MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION*

    by
    TENGKU AHMAD HAZRI

    Despite the primacy of the written constitution, despite its lofty status as the very foundation of the nation and the embodiment of the social contract, recent trends nevertheless reveal a shift away from the black letters of the law towards a search for the moral foundations of the constitution that are largely unwritten.

    Significantly, from all sides of the debates, the sanctity of the constitution itself has been upheld, and although different parties have advanced different interpretations of its ideals and history, none have gone to the point of challenging its validity as such.

    . . .

    * Published with kind permission of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. (www.iais.org.my).


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. PLEA AND PLEA BARGAINING: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICE IN NIGERIA AND THE UNITED STATES [Read excerpt]
    by Okanyi, Donatus Onuora[i] Ugochukwu Charles Kanu, LL.M (Northumbria)[ii] Ifeoma Ononye, LL.M[iii] [2019] 1 LNS(A) c

  6. [2019] 1 LNS(A) c
    logo
    NIGERIA

    PLEA AND PLEA BARGAINING: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICE IN NIGERIA AND THE UNITED STATES

    by
    Okanyi, Donatus Onuora[i]
    Ugochukwu Charles Kanu, LL.M (Northumbria)[ii]
    Ifeoma Ononye, LL.M[iii]

    ABSTRACT

    The concept of plea of the defendant and/or accused person which is of immemorial antiquity heralds the commencement of criminal trials in Nigeria and by extension the world over. Without plea there will be no plea bargain, hence the need for the understanding of the intricate concept of plea and plea bargain. Plea bargain has come to stay as an aspect of Nigeria's criminal justice system, though it is a new innovation in the Nigerian criminal justice system. Though the concept had a doubtful origin regarding its acceptance in our criminal justice system, recent Federal and State legislations, particularly the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA), have recognized the concept and made copious provisions relating to its application.

    . . .

    [i] Lecturer I, Nigerian Law School, Agbani, Enugu State, Nigeria. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK) amongst other professional bodies. +2348039697765 okanyidonjude@yahoo.com okanyi.onuora@nigerianlawschool.edu.ng.

    [ii] Lecturer I, Lecturer in Law (Department of Criminal Litigation) Nigerian Law School, Lagos Campus; kanu@lawschoollagos.org.

    [iii] Lecturer I, Nigerian Law School, Headquarters, Abuja. ononyeiu@yahoo.com.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

CLJ Article(s)

  1. DIRECTORS DUTIES: THE FOUNDATION OF GOOD CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (PART 1) [Read excerpt]
    by DR USHARANI BALASINGAM* [2019] 7 CLJ(A) i

  2. [2019] 7 CLJ(A) i
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    DIRECTORS DUTIES: THE FOUNDATION OF GOOD CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (PART 1)

    by
    DR USHARANI BALASINGAM*

    This paper comes in two parts. The first opens with the concept of fiduciary and need for it even though s. 220 of the Companies Act 2016 has removed the expressed provision of 'rule of law' as a source of law to regulate directors' duties. It covers the interlaced aspect of fiduciary within the shoes of the directors and the statutory aspects of directors' duties. The second part returns to the fiduciary duties covering areas of trust and remedies.

    Directors are fiduciaries of the company. With this comes a weight of responsibilities founded on trust to be discharged in an honourable manner. This in turn seeks to ensure that the businesses are inherently cultivated with values to ensure the business sustainability.[1] This is in line with the realisation that no matter what structure or processes are in place for governance, the integrity and ethics of the individual directors, board of directors and key players in the check mechanisms are very crucial factors.

    . . .

    * Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 813 Departure Levy Act 2019 1 August 2019 - Part I, Part II, Part IV, section 17, section 18, section 31, Part VII, Part VIII except for section 37, Part IX, Part X and Part XI to the Act; 1 September 2019 - Part III, Part V except for sections 17 and 18, Part VI except for section 31, and section 37 to the Act [PU(B) 373/2019] -
ACT 812 Finance Act 2018 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; The Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 31; The Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 63; The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 69; The Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 71; The Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 83; The Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 91 -
ACT 811 Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (Dissolution) Act 2018 1 January 2019 [PU(B) 732/2018] -
ACT 810 Subang Golf Course Corporation Act 1968 (Revised 2018) 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 26 of 1968; First Revision - 1993 (Act 509 wef 8 October 1993) -
ACT 809 Pool Betting Act 1967 (Revised 2018) 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1967 as Act of Parliament No 72 of 1967; First Revision - 1989 (Act 384 wef 21 September 1989) -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1597 Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 807
ACT A1596 Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 806
ACT A1595 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 438
ACT A1594 Excise (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 176
ACT A1593 Customs (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 235

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 174/2019 (Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 3) Order 2019) (Amendment) Order 2019 28 June 2019 29 June 2019 PU(A) 82/2019
PU(A) 173/2019 (Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2019) (Amendment) Order 2019 28 June 2019 29 June 2019 PU(A) 81/2019
PU(A) 172/2019 Malaysian Institute Of Accountants (Membership And Council) (Amendment) Rules 2019 28 June 2019 1 July 2019 PU(A) 343/2001
PU(A) 171/2019 Customs Duties (Amendment) Order 2019 26 June 2019 1 July 2019 PU(A) 5/2017
PU(A) 170/2019 Poisons (Amendment Of Second Schedule) Order 2019 25 June 2019 26 June 2019 ACT 366

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 350/2019 Appointment Of Member Of The Competition Commission 25 July 2019 1 June 2019 to 31 May 2022 ACT 713
PU(B) 349/2019 Notification Of Values Of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 25 July 2019 2 August 2019 to 15 August 2019 ACT 235
PU(B) 348/2019 Notice Of Extension Of Time Period For Making Preliminary Determination 24 July 2019 25 July 2019 ACT 504
PU(B) 347/2019 Notification Of Values Of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 24 July 2019 1 August 2019 to 31 August 2019 ACT 235
PU(B) 346/2019 Revocation Of Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 11537 Mukim Ampang 23 July 2019 24 July 2019 ACT 56/1965

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(B) 217/2015 Notice to Third Parties PU(B) 345/2019   Schedule
PU(B) 417/2018 Returns and Statements of Election Expenses - Sarawak PU(B) 337/2019   Schedule
PU(A) 82/2019 Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 3) Order 2019 PU(A) 174/2019 29 June 2019 Paragraph 2
PU(A) 81/2019 Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2019 PU(A) 173/2019 29 June 2019 Paragraph 2
PU(A) 343/2001 Malaysian Institute of Accountants (Membership and Council) Rules 2001 PU(A) 172/2019 1 July 2019 Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(B) 11/2016 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Federal Lands Commissioner PU(B) 332/2019 10 July 2019
PU(A) 128/1999 Income Tax (Allowance For Increased Exports) Rules 1999 PU(A) 162/2019 Year of assessment 2016
PU(A) 158/2005 Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 17) Order 2005 PU(A) 161/2019 Year of assessment 2016
PU(A) 125/2018 Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2018 PU(A) 132/2019 On the date of appointment of the persons named in the first column of the Schedule
PU(A) 144/2016 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Order 2016 PU(A) 128/2019 8 May 2019