CLJ Pulse #41/2025 (09 October 2025)

Issue #41/2025

09 October 2025

Subscribe now to make the most of this legal bulletin and have full access to judgments and other documents.

New This Week

Case Spotlights
1. TAN SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH v. TOMMY THOMAS & ORS [2025] 9 CLJ 111
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2025 Volume 8 (Part 6)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

TAN SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH v. TOMMY THOMAS & ORS [2025] 9 CLJ 111
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD SHAHRIR MOHD SALLEH J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: 22NCVC-127-03-2015]
22 JULY 2025

Section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') serves, in part, to safeguard legal practitioners from unwarranted reputational harm. Where a statute is enacted for the protection of a particular class of persons and a breach of that statute causes the very harm it was intended to prevent, the injured party ought to be entitled to seek compensation under the tort of breach of statutory duty, especially when the advocate and solicitor 'had been damnified' and suffered prejudice. In assessing quantum of damages, courts must apply the principles of moderation and proportionality, which extends to all reputational harms, including those resulting from breaches of statutory duty that affects an advocate's professional standing.

LEGAL PROFESSION: Malaysian Bar - Statutory duty - Breach - Assessment of damages - Bar Council circulated motion against advocate and solicitor to members in advance of Annual General Meeting - Whether action contravened requirements under s. 99(1) of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') - Whether statutory immunity conferred by s. 111 of LPA available to Bar - Whether advocate and solicitor 'had been damnified' - Whether there was loss of reputation and injury to feelings - Whether there was proof of diminished professional opportunities - Whether award for emotional distress justified as recognition of psychological impact flowing from breach - Disregard for procedural safeguards intended to protect rights of advocates and solicitors - Whether award for general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary or punitive damages warranted

TORT: Breach of statutory duty - Malaysian Bar - Bar Council circulated motion against advocate and solicitor to members in advance of Annual General Meeting - Whether action contravened requirements under s. 99(1) of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') - Assessment of damages - Whether statutory immunity conferred by s. 111 of LPA available to Bar - Whether advocate and solicitor 'had been damnified' - Whether there was loss of reputation and injury to feelings - Whether there was proof of diminished professional opportunities - Whether award for emotional distress justified as recognition of psychological impact flowing from breach - Disregard for procedural safeguards intended to protect rights of advocates and solicitors - Whether award for general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary or punitive damages warranted

TORT: Damages - Assessment of - Breach of statutory duty - Malaysian Bar - Bar Council circulated motion against advocate and solicitor to members in advance of Annual General Meeting - Whether action contravened requirements under s. 99(1) of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') - Whether statutory immunity conferred by s. 111 of LPA available to Bar - Whether advocate and solicitor 'had been damnified' - Whether there was loss of reputation and injury to feelings - Whether there was proof of diminished professional opportunities - Whether award for emotional distress justified as recognition of psychological impact flowing from breach - Disregard for procedural safeguards intended to protect rights of advocates and solicitors - Whether award for general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary or punitive damages warranted

APPEAL UPDATES

Maria Mad Sahirun v. PP [2025] CLJU 621 affirming the High Court case of PP v. Maria Mad Sahirun [2022] CLJU 2288
B U Developments Sdn Bhd v. Adeline Tan Kean Sim & Anor [2025] CLJU 637 affirming the High Court case of B U Developments Sdn Bhd v. Adeline Tan Kean Sim & Anor [2023] CLJU 1716

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2023] CLJU 292	8 BAYVIEW (M) SDN BHD v. ANG SWEE KIONG In resisting an application to remove a private caveat on a land, the caveator must satisfy that it has a caveatable interest in the said land. Mere settlement between parties in a civil suit does not give rise to a caveatable interest in a land when such land is not the subject matter of the said civil suit. LAND LAW: Caveat - Private caveat - Removal - Caveatable interest - Caveat lodged on plaintiff's land following global settlement reached between plaintiff and defendant in civil suit - Land was not a subject matter in civil suit - Whether defendant has caveatable interest on plaintiff's land - Whether there were serious issues to be tried For the plaintiff - Gan Techiong & Wong Wan Ting; M/s Gan & Lim For the defendant - Bhavanash Sharma Gurchan Singh Sharma; M/s Bhavanash Sharma
[2025] CLJU 138	TYE WAN OON & ANOR v. LOH BAN HOCK & ORS An issue or complaint which could have been canvassed in an earlier proceeding should have been put forward there and not in instalments in a subsequent proceeding. The doctrine of res judicata will preclude relitigation of such an issue or complaint in the subsequent proceeding. It becomes an abuse of the court process to raise matters which could have been litigated in the earlier proceeding in a subsequent proceeding. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Action to set aside consent judgment - Res judicata - Existence of previous action to set aside consent judgment involving same parties, identical reliefs and grounds - Litigation by instalment - Whether action was frivolous and vexatious and abuse of process of court - Whether action barred by doctrine of res judicata - Whether consent judgment recorded was void due to non-compliance with s. 9 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 For the plaintiffs - Ooi Zie Yiong; M/s Phee, Cheng & Ung For the 2nd and 3th defendants - Shaaleni Ravendran and K. Kumarathiraviam; M/s K. Kumara & Co
[2025] CLJU 166	YU MING WEE & ORS v. IKATAN KHUSUS SDN BHD & ORS Where there is no contractual provision for an adjustment of agreed consideration due to certain future factors, then it is not justified for the defendant to seek a reduction or discount in the plaintiffs' entitlement. CONTRACT: Construction - Shares sale agreement - Consideration - Consideration in kind - Assignment of properties in project - Whether plaintiffs are entitled for agreed consideration - Whether plaintiffs' entitlement was subjected to any increase in construction costs - Whether defendants had breached their obligation - Whether parties have intended a uniform average price tied to a specific date - Whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages For the plaintiffs - Thomas Ting Shu Kiong; M/s S K Ting & Co For the defendants - Alvin Leong; M/s Leong & Co
[2025] CLJU 167	HSU, CHIN-YAO v. HSU, ZUEI-TING In order to succeed in a claim for unjust enrichment and restitution, all four conditions under s. 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 must be fulfilled. If the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of establishing all four conditions, then there is nothing for the defendant to disprove. CONTRACT: Unjust enrichment - Restitution - Claim for monies lent - Questions were not put to defendant during cross-examination to establish loan - Whether there was gratuitous intent on part of plaintiff in remitting monies to defendant - Whether monies remitted was for all intents and purposes a loan - Whether defendant enjoyed benefit of monies personally - Whether there was sufficient evidence to support plaintiff's assertion that he had taken active steps to recover monies from defendant and unsuccessful - Whether all conditions under s. 71 of Contracts Act 1950 had been fulfilled For the appellant - Wilson Lai; M/s Lai & U For the respondent - Lim Chun Yuan; M/s MG's Legal Chambers
[2025] CLJU 131	PRAEMA CHINNAYA lwn. KUNASEGARAN KANDASAMY & ANOR Permohonan untuk pembubaran perkahwinan hendaklah difailkan terlebih dahulu sebelum Mahkamah memberikan perintah berkenaan dengan pembahagian harta sepencarian yang telah diperolehi sepanjang tempoh perkahwinan tersebut. Justeru, suatu tindakan yang difailkan untuk menuntut pemulangan sebahagian harta sepencarian tanpa terlebih dahulu membubarkan perkahwinan adalah pra-matang sama sekali dan wajar ditolak oleh Mahkamah. UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Harta matrimoni - Pembahagian - Harta sepencarian - Tuntutan oleh isteri untuk sebahagian pendapatan daripada tanah - Permohonan difailkan melalui saman pemula di bawah A. 15 k. 16 dan A. 92 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Tiada permohonan difailkan untuk pembatalan perkahwinan - Sama ada permohonan seharusnya difailkan di bawah s. 76 Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 - Sama ada tuntutan adalah pra-matang Bagi pihak pemohon - T/n R J Malar, Bhama & Partners Bagi pihak responden pertama - T/n Mathews & Associates Bagi pihak responden kedua - T/n Hisham Sobri & Kadir

CLJ 2025 Volume 8 (Part 6)

The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ('REJA') is an independent statutory regime that allows for the registration and enforcement of foreign judgments, including confirmation judgments based on an arbitral award, from countries with which Malaysia has a reciprocal enforcement relationship. This avenue is separate from the Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA'), which provides a direct route for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the framework of the New York Convention. The REJA and the AA are separate laws premised on their respective treaty arrangements, governing different rights. The REJA cannot be construed so as to be subject to the AA such that it overrides the AA. Additionally, the issue of conflict or inconsistency arising between the two statutes does not arise because they provide different modes of enforcement. It then follows that the passive remedy recognised and utilised in the setting aside of arbitral awards under the AA cannot be read into the REJA. The REJA contains its own provisions, allowing for the non-registration of a judgment including a confirmation judgment and these provisions govern such setting aside.
ING Bank NV & Anor v. Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd [2025] 8 CLJ 873 [FC]

ARBITRATION | CIVIL PROCEDURE

ARBITRATION: Award - Enforcement - Process and procedure of enforcing foreign arbitral award in Malaysia - International commercial arbitration - Dispute involving arbitral award from foreign tribunal - Judgment obtained from court to formally register and confirm arbitral award - Arbitral award registered in foreign jurisdiction and handed down under Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ('REJA') and/or Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') - Whether winning party in arbitral award entitled to enforce award - Whether restricted to enforcing award only under AA - Whether REJA displaced by AA - Whether REJA to be read subject to AA

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Foreign judgment - Confirmation judgment based on arbitral award - Enforcement - Dispute involving arbitration award from foreign tribunal - Judgment obtained from court to formally register and confirm arbitral award - Arbitral award registered in foreign jurisdiction and handed down under Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ('REJA') and/or Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 ('AA') - Whether winning party in arbitral award entitled to enforce award - Whether restricted to enforcing award only under AA - Whether REJA displaced by AA - Whether REJA to be read subject to AA - Whether challenge put forward as jurisdictional challenge, predicated on findings of fraud, is true jurisdictional challenge - Extent in which court may review evidence relating to fraud under REJA

Abu Bakar Jais PCA
Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ
Nordin Hassan FCJ

For the appellants - Sharon Chong, Muhammad Suhaib Ibrahim & Akhmal Amaluddin; M/s Skrine
For the respondent - Nahendran Navaratnam, Steven Thiru, Wong Wye Wah, Derrick Chan, Jeremiah Rais, Brandon Toh & Ananthan Moorthi; M/s CK Chan Law Practice
Amicus Curiae - Professor Dr Jason Chuah Dean of Faculty of Law

Rule 7(3A) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 is the statutory provision with regards to admission of new evidence at the appellate level. Although the exact wordings of the essential elements in Ladd v. Marshall and the elements in r. 7(3A) are not word per word the same, the effect and the consequence of applying the elements in r. 7(3A) and the elements in Ladd v. Marshall, lead to the same conclusion. The principles established in Ladd v. Marshall is encapsulated in r. 7(3A) .
The Attorney General Of Malaysia v. Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abdul Razak [2025] 8 CLJ 951 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Judicial review - Admission of new evidence - Application to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage - Whether principles in Ladd v. Marshall applicable - Whether application under r. 7(3A) of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 prerequisite - Whether criteria under Ladd v. Marshall must be satisfied - Whether addendum order 'true' or 'not true' arguable point to be ventilated in substantive hearing of judicial review application - Whether leave for judicial review ought to be granted

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Mandamus - Application for leave - Application for judicial review to compel public authority to confirm existence of addendum order and provide copy of same - Whether leave for judicial review ought to be granted

Hasnah Mohammed Hashim CJ (Malaya)
Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ
Hanipah Farikullah FCJ

For the appellant - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, Shamsul Bolhassan, Ahmad Hanir Hambaly; SFCs, Nurhafizza Azizan, Safiyyah Omar, Ainna Sherina Saipolamin & Siti Nur Farhana Muhammad Azmi; FCs
For the respondent - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee, Wan Muhammad Arfan Wan Othman, Nur Syafiqah Mohd Sofian, Naresh Mayachandran, Tharrence Anthony & Mohd Hafeez Rahim (PDK); M/s Shafee & Co

When there is a specific statutory mechanism available to validate a corporate action that is in breach of the Companies Act 1965, such as the shares issuance in this case, the court must apply the statutory provisions, ie, ss. 63 and/or 355, rather than the common law principle in In Re Duomatic Ltd ('Duomatic'). The Duomatic principle is not a substitute for statutory validation procedures.
WTK Realty Sdn Bhd v. Kathryn Ma Wai Fong & Anor And Other Appeals [2025] 8 CLJ 988 [FC]

COMPANY LAW

COMPANY LAW: Shares - Issuance of - Nullification and validation - Common law principle in In Re Duomatic Ltd ('Duomatic') - Application - Whether Duomatic principle of 'informal assent' create any exception to mandatory statutory requirement of obtaining prior shareholders' approval before directors can issue/allot shares - What amounts to valid approval of company for issuance/allotment of shares by directors - Whether court can depart/derogate from mandatory statutory requirement of prior shareholders' approval to allow subsequent approval of shareholders for issuance/allotment of shares - Whether Duomatic principle can still apply where issuance/allotment of shares was not made under offer to members of company in proportion to members' shareholdings and results in prejudice to one or more of members - Companies Act 1965, ss. 63, 132D(1) & 355 - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 5(1)

Abdul Rahman Sebli CJ (Sabah & Sarawak)
Abu Bakar Jais FCJ
Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera FCJ

(Civil Appeal No: 02(F)-42-08-2023(Q))

For the appellant - Sim Hui Chuang; M/s Reddi & Co Advocs
For the 1st respondent - Alvin Yong & Shirleen Ong; M/s Alvin Yong Advocs
For the 2nd respondent - Orlando Chua; M/s Wong, Orlando Chua & Kuok Advocs
For the 3rd respondent - Victor Lau Pik You; M/s PY Lau & Lu Advocs

(Civil Appeal No: 02(F)-44-08-2023(Q))

For the appellant - George Lim & Stanley Eddy; M/s Battenberg & Talma Advocs
For the 1st respondent - Alvin Yong & Shirleen Ong; M/s Alvin Yong Advocs
For the 2nd respondent - Sim Hui Chuang; M/s Reddi & Co Advocs

(Civil Appeal No: 02(F)-46-08-2023(Q))

For the appellant - George Lim & Stanley Eddy; M/s Battenberg & Talma Advocs
For the 1st respondent - Alvin Yong & Shirleen Ong; M/s Alvin Yong Advocs
For the 2nd respondent - Victor Lau Pik You; M/s PY Lau & Lu Advocs

(i) The legal threshold for defamation is not met where the sting of a statement does not materially add to a reputational damage already occasioned by events and disclosures independent of the impugned statements published. In such scenario, the impugned words, in the context in which they are published and in light of the substantial material already publicly available, and when read fairly in context and through the eyes of an informed reasonable reader, does not bore a defamatory meaning in law; (ii) Section 90 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 sets out the disciplinary complaint process related to advocates and solicitors, but does not impose a statutory prohibition on commentary or expression of concern by the Malaysian Bar or its President.
Mohd Zaid Ibrahim & Ors v. Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2025] 8 CLJ 1011 [HC]

TORT | LEGAL PROFESSION

TORT: Defamation - Defamatory statements - Press release issued by Malaysian Bar - Whether falsely imputing professional misconduct by claimants as advocates and solicitors - Whether impugned statements reflected sentiments and criticisms already circulating widely - Whether issues available in public domain - Whether impugned words materially lowered claimants reputation - Whether legal threshold for defamation met

TORT: Conspiracy to injure - Claim for - Press release issued by Malaysian Bar - Whether falsely imputing professional misconduct by claimants as advocates and solicitors - Conspiracy to injure - Claim for - Whether there was agreement between Malaysian Bar and its President to act together - Whether President of Malaysian Bar issued press release without consultation from Malaysian Bar - Whether conspiracy claim could stand as independent tort - Whether conspiracy claim unfounded

LEGAL PROFESSION: Malaysian Bar - Object and powers of Bar Council - Press release issued by Malaysian Bar - Whether falsely imputing professional misconduct by advocates and solicitors - Whether s. 90 of Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') imposes statutory prohibition on commentary or expression of concern by Malaysian Bar or its President - Whether President of Bar Council issued press release under institutional authority pursuant to s. 42(1)(d) of LPA - Whether Malaysian Bar empowered to express views on matters affecting legal profession and administration of justice - Whether there was breach of statutory duty under s. 99 of LPA

Roz Mawar Rozain J

For the plaintiffs - Rueben Mathiavaranam, Mohd Zaid Ibrahim & Liew Teck Huat; M/s Zaid Ibrahim Suflan T H Liew & Partners
For the defendants - Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi, Jason Koh Wei Siong, Tiffany Low Jia Qi, Hoi Jack S'ng, Celes Chuah Xin Ni (PDK) & Yee Xin Yi (PDK); M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

PROSIDING REMAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 117 KANUN TATACARA JENAYAH, KEBEBASAN INDIVIDU DAN KELESTARIAN SISTEM PERUNDANGAN JENAYAH ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Subash Ramasamy* [2025] CLJU(A) xcii

ARTICLE ANALYSIS ON LAND ASSURANCE FUND FRAMEWORKS: LESSONS FROM MALAYSIA AND AUSTRALIA ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Pha Lih Wen^[i] Lim Jia Ee^[ii] Aruna Dhanapalan^[iii] Wan Woei Yi^[iv] Tharshiny Subramaniam^[v] Dr Nur Atheefa Sufeena M Suaree^[vi] [2025] CLJU(A) xciii

[2025] CLJU(A) xciii

MALAYSIA

ARTICLE ANALYSIS ON LAND ASSURANCE FUND FRAMEWORKS: LESSONS FROM MALAYSIA AND AUSTRALIA

by
Pha Lih Wen^[i]
Lim Jia Ee^[ii]
Aruna Dhanapalan^[iii]
Wan Woei Yi^[iv]
Tharshiny Subramaniam^[v]
Dr Nur Atheefa Sufeena M Suaree^[vi]

ABSTRACT

The article by Azizun, Mohd Dian, and Arshad (2024) entitled 'Land Assurance Fund Frameworks: An Analytical Study of Relevant Legal Provisions in Malaysia and Australia' evaluates the weaknesses of Malaysia's Torrens system in protecting landowners from fraud and administrative errors. The authors argue that the absence of an assurance fund leaves innocent landowners uncompensated, as illustrated in landmark cases such as Adorna Properties and Tan Ying Hong. Drawing on comparative analysis of eight Australian jurisdictions, the article highlights funding models, claims processes, and limitation periods that could inform Malaysia's reforms. Azizun et al. propose a hybrid funding model and flexible limitation rules, contending that an assurance fund is necessary to uphold Article 13 of the Federal Constitution and strengthen public confidence in the land registration system.

INTRODUCTION

This analysis focuses on Azizun, Mohd Dian, and Arshad's (2024) article entitled 'Land Assurance Fund Frameworks: An Analytical Study of Relevant Legal Provisions in Malaysia and Australia.'^[1] The article is significant because it highlights the persistent gaps in Malaysia's Torrens system, especially the absence of a compensation mechanism for victims of fraud. By comparing Malaysia with Australia, the authors propose that a land assurance fund would enhance the protection of landowners and strengthen the credibility of the land registration framework.

. . .

^[i]–[v] Second year student, Faculty of Law, UKM.

^[vi] Senior lecturer, Faculty of Law, UKM.

COMPELLED MUTUAL SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND THEIR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: WITH REFERENCE TO FATIMAH NOORDIN V. CARSEM (M) SDN BHD & ANOR [2025] 6 CLJ 713 ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Professor Dato' Sri Dr Ashgar Ali Ali Mohamed * [2025] CLJU(A) xciv

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealing
ACT 870	Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Act 2025	1 August 2025	-
ACT 869	Parliamentary Service Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	-
ACT 868	Malaysian Media Council Act 2025	14 June 2025 [PU(B) 222/2025]	-
ACT 867	Government Service Efficiency Commitment Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	-
ACT 866	Online Safety Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	-

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1767	Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2025	Not Yet In Force	ACT 000
ACT A1766	Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Amendment) Act 2025	10 July 2025	ACT 334
ACT A1765	Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation Fund (Amendment) Act 2025	15 June 2025 [PU(B) 218/2025]	ACT 389
ACT A1764	Fire Services (Amendment) Act 2025	1 July 2025 [PU(B) 238/2025] - ss 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18; 1 January 2026 - ss 2, 3, 4, 11, 19, 20 and 21	ACT 341
ACT A1763	Supplementary Supply (2024) Act 2025	15 May 2025

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 327/2025	Tourism Industry (Tour Operating Business and Travel Agency Business) (Amendment) Regulations 2025	10 September 2025	12 September 2025	PU(A) 333/1992
PU(A) 326/2025	Labuan Business Activity Tax (Requirements For Labuan International Commodity Trading Company) (Amendment) Regulations 2025	9 September 2025	10 September 2025	PU(A) 482/2021
PU(A) 325/2025	Labuan Business Activity Tax (Requirements For Labuan Business Activity) (Amendment) Regulations 2025	9 September 2025	10 September 2025	PU(A) 423/2021
PU(A) 324/2025	Traditional and Complementary Medicine (Amendment) Regulations 2025	29 August 2025	1 September 2025	PU(A) 69/2021
PU(A) 323/2025	Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) (Amendment) Order 2025	29 August 2025	1 September 2025	PU(A) 210/2018

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 361/2025	Notice To Third Parties	2 October 2025	8 October 2025	ACT 613
PU(B) 360/2025	Notice To Third Parties	2 October 2025	8 October 2025	ACT 613
PU(B) 359/2025	Notice To Third Parties	2 October 2025	8 October 2025	ACT 613
PU(B) 358/2025	Notice To Third Parties	2 October 2025	8 October 2025	ACT 613
PU(B) 357/2025	Appointment of Probation Officers	2 October 2025	8 October 2025	ACT 611

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 452	Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991	AKTA A1760	1 Oktober 2025 [PU(B) 354/2025]	Seksyen 70A, 70C, 70D, 70E, 70F dan 70H; Jadual Pertama dan Jadual Ketiga
ACT 452	Employees Provident Fund Act 1991	ACT A1760	1 October 2025 [PU(B) 354/2025]	Sections 70A, 70C, 70D, 70E, 70F and 70H; First Schedule and Third Schedule
AKTA 725	Akta Tenaga Boleh Baharu 2011	PU(A) 251/2025	28 Januari 2019	Jadual
ACT 725	Renewable Energy Act 2011	PU(A) 251/2025	28 January 2019	Schedule
AKTA 615	Akta Kesihatan Mental 2001	AKTA A1693	10 September 2025 [PU(B) 330/2025]	Seksyen 11

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 405/2010	Road Transport (Fee and Charge For Erecting Structures For Billboard on Federal Road) Rules 2010	PU(A) 319/2025	1 September 2025
PU(A) 365/2023	Federal Constitution (Review of Special Grant Under Article 112d) (State of Sarawak) Order 2023	PU(A) 272/2025	28 August 2025
PU(A) 312/1998	Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Conditions on Supervision of Drug Dependants Who Volunteer For Treatment and Rehabilitation) Rules 1998	PU(A) 264/2025	22 August 2025
PU(A) 310/1998	Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Forms) Rules 1998	PU(A) 263/2025	22 August 2025
PU(A) 364/2023	Federal Constitution (Review of Special Grant Under Article 112D) (State of Sabah) Order 2023	PU(A) 271/2025	28 August 2025

To unsubscribe click here