Back to Top

Issue #13/2021
01 April 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

GARDEN BAY SDN BHD v. SIME DARBY PROPERTY BHD [2021] 3 CLJ 751
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA; SURAYA OTHMAN JCA; AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(C)(A)-2268-12-2016]
11 DECEMBER 2020

The mandate of an arbitrator, on reference of a dispute to arbitration, must be limited to the terms defined by the parties for him to exercise his jurisdiction. An arbitrator could not be said to act beyond his jurisdiction and to be in breach of the rules of natural justice when he makes a finding based on an issue presented or argued before him/her and invites parties to present or argue on the issue which forms the award. In arriving at his findings, an arbitrator is also empowered to draw upon his own knowledge and expertise in the subject matter.

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Appeal against - Dispute between contracting parties referred to arbitration - Whether award dealt with dispute not contemplated by or not falling within terms of submission to arbitration - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether arbitrator considered claim and counterclaim based on evidence presented - Whether arbitrator empowered to draw upon own knowledge and expertise in subject matter - Whether award ought to be set aside - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 21(3)(b), 30(5), 37(1)(a)(iv), 37(1)(b)(ii), 37(2)(b)(i) & 37(2)(b)(ii)


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Suhidar v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 801 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Suhidar [Criminal Trial No: 45A-01-01/2016]

  2. PP v. Shahrul Azlan Abdul Jaffar & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 802 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Shahrul Azlan Abdul Jaffar & Ors [Criminal Trial No: 45A-09-03/2015]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 624

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA lwn. CENTRAL STRATA SDN BHD

Kebenaran untuk meneruskan tindakan pelaksanaan selepas 6 tahun penghakiman diperoleh dibenarkan sekiranya terdapat sebab-sebab yang mencukupi. Percubaan penyelesaian antara pihak-pihak sejurus selepas tarikh penghakiman yang menyebabkan kelewatan oleh plaintif untuk memulakan tindakan pelaksanaan penghakiman terhadap defendan merupakan sebab-sebab yang mencukupi untuk memberikan kebenaran pelaksanaan.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pelaksanaan - Pelaksanaan dengan kebenaran - Kebenaran untuk meneruskan tindakan pelaksanaan selepas 6 tahun penghakiman diputuskan - Penghakiman masih dalam had masa pelaksanaan - Ujian sebab-sebab yang mencukupi - Sama ada fakta bahawa penghakiman masih dalam tempoh had masa pelaksanaan boleh dijadikan alasan untuk memberikan kebenaran pelaksanaan - Sama ada kewujudan percubaan penyelesaian antara pihak-pihak merupakan sebab-sebab yang mencukupi untuk memberikan kebenaran pelaksanaan - Sama ada kehendak peruntukan-peruntukan A 46 k 2(1)(a), 3(1), 3(2)(a)(b)(e) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 telah dipenuhi

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Umi Salamah Abdul Latiff; Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri
  • Bagi pihak responden - Pavitra Satha Sivam; T/n Selvam Nanda & Partners

[2019] 1 LNS 748

KSKPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD lwn. BERKAT SEHATI SDN BHD & SATU LAGI

Pertikaian antara pihak-pihak perlu dirujuk ke timbang tara apabila wujud perjanjian yang sah yang mengikat pihak-pihak bagi maksud s. 10(1) Akta Timbang Tara 2005. Apabila pertikaian pihak-pihak dirujuk ke timbang tara, maka prosiding di Mahkamah tidak wajar dibatalkan tetapi ditangguhkan.

TIMBANGTARA: Penggantungan prosiding - Rujukan pertikaian - Klausa timbangtara - Keesahan perjanjian dipertikaikan - Sama ada wujud perjanjian bertulis yang sah yang mengikat pihak-pihak - Sama ada pertikaian berkenaan keesahan perjanjian perlu dibawa ke hadapan timbang tara - Sama ada prosiding di Mahkamah wajar dibatalkan atau ditangguhkan apabila Mahkamah memutuskan untuk merujuk pertikaian ke timbang tara - Akta Timbang Tara 2005, s. 10(1)

  • Bagi pihak perayu/plaintif - Zamri Ibrahim; T/n Zamri Ibrahim & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden/defendan - TK Cheng; T/n Cheng, Lee & Goh

[2019] 1 LNS 1273

PERMATA TRANS OFFSHORE SDN BHD v. NEW WING ENERGY SDN BHD

An application for injunction to restrain a winding-up proceedings, after the presentation of the winding-up petition, should rightly be made in the winding-up court itself. The winding-up court may grant the injunction if it is of the opinion that the winding-up petition is an abuse of the court process or that a company will sustain irreparable harm if the petition is permitted to proceed further. Such injunction application should not be made in the civil courts unless in rare and exceptional cases where it is not expedient or if irreparable harm will be suffered by the company if it is required to file its application for the injunction before the winding-up court.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction - Forum convenience - Application for injunction to restrain winding-up proceedings after presentation of winding-up petition - Application filed in civil court - Whether civil courts could exercise jurisdiction to grant an injunction after winding-up petition has been presented - Whether winding-up court would be more appropriate forum to consider and grant injunctive relief - Whether it will not be expedient and irreparable harm will be suffered by company if it is required to file its application for injunction before winding-up court

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Application for - Injunction to restrain winding-up proceedings - Application filed in civil court - Whether civil court has jurisdiction to grant an injunctive relief to restrain winding-up proceedings after presentation of petition - Whether application ought to have been made in winding-up court instead of civil court

  • For the plaintiff - Brian Sim Boon Lian & Justina Koh Shu Yin; M/s Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim
  • For the defendant - Ismail Mohamed Arifin & Nur Aliah Selamat; M/s Ram Reza & Muhammad

[2019] 1 LNS 1286

Q & M DENTAL GROUP (SINGAPORE) LIMITED & ORS v. DR. HONG AN LIANG & ORS

Terms and undertaking of an Anton Pillar order ('APO') should be construed strictly and the same not only binds the party who seeks the said order but anyone who has notice of the terms and undertaking of the APO. Where the terms of the APO specifically state that the documents obtained are to be used for specific court proceedings, then usage of such documents in proceedings other than the intended court proceedings amounts to a breach of the said order which will expose a party to contempt of court.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Committal proceedings - Documents obtained as a result of execution of an Anton Pillar order ('APO') was used for commencing disciplinary inquiry against defendant - APO specifically stated documents to be used in current civil proceedings - Whether subject matter of court proceedings was distinct and separate from disciplinary inquiry - Whether use of documents obtained from APO in disciplinary proceedings is a breach of terms and undertaking of the said order - Whether order for committal ought to be made against party that had breached terms and undertaking of APO

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Documents - Expungement - Power of court to expunge documents referred in disciplinary inquiry proceedings - Order sought affecting a non-party - Whether court could make an order affecting a non-party - Whether application for expungement of documents was proper

  • For the applicant/ 1st defendant - Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Aman & Amanda Loh; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
  • For the contemnors - Oomen Kurien & Nur Ainnabila Rosdi; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co

[2019] 1 LNS 1297

DKSH MALAYSIA SDN BHD v. HO YUET CHOON & ANOR

1. It is reasonably foreseeable that a consumer will suffer loss or damage arising from testing conducted by a contractor at the consumer's premises. The contractor thus owes a duty to take all reasonable care in the conduct of the testing so as not to cause loss to the consumer.

2. Where a witness has lied on a material aspect of his testimony during trial, then it is incumbent upon the trial judge to scrutinize the evidence of the said witness with great care rather than rejecting the entire testimony of the said witness.

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Sufficient close proximity - Contractor of sprinkler conducted testing which resulted in discharge of water in consumer's warehouse - Consumer's goods damaged - Whether contractor owes a duty to take all reasonable care so as not to cause loss to consumer - Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that consumer will suffer loss or damage arising from testing conducted by contractor - Whether purchase orders and invoices had excluded contractor's duty of care - Whether contractor breached duty of care - Whether consumer's loss would not have occurred but for contractor's negligence - Whether consumer's losses were supported with documentary evidence

TORT: Negligence - Damages - Assessment - Contractor of sprinkler conducted testing which resulted in discharge of water in consumer's warehouse - Consumer's goods damaged - Whether consumer has a duty to appoint an independent loss adjuster to compute its loss - Whether consumer was bound to accept adjustment prepared by loss adjuster of contractor's insurer

EVIDENCE: Witness - Admissibility - Credibility - Witness lied on a material aspect of testimony - Whether entire evidence of witness ought to be rejected - Whether it was incumbent upon court to scrutinize evidence of witness with great care

  • For the appellant - Liew Seong Yee; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
  • For the respondents - Yap Khoon Jung; M/s KJ Yap & Co

CLJ 2021 Volume 3 (Part 6)

The mandate of an arbitrator, on reference of a dispute to arbitration, must be limited to the terms defined by the parties for him to exercise his jurisdiction. An arbitrator could not be said to act beyond his jurisdiction and to be in breach of the rules of natural justice when he makes a finding based on an issue presented or argued before him/her and invites parties to present or argue on the issue which forms the award. In arriving at his findings, an arbitrator is also empowered to draw upon his own knowledge and expertise in the subject matter.
Garden Bay Sdn Bhd v. Sime Darby Property Bhd [2021] 3 CLJ 751 [CA]

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Appeal against - Dispute between contracting parties referred to arbitration - Whether award dealt with dispute not contemplated by or not falling within terms of submission to arbitration - Whether there was breach of natural justice - Whether arbitrator considered claim and counterclaim based on evidence presented - Whether arbitrator empowered to draw upon own knowledge and expertise in subject matter - Whether award ought to be set aside - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 21(3)(b), 30(5), 37(1)(a)(iv), 37(1)(b)(ii), 37(2)(b)(i) & 37(2)(b)(ii)

 

 

 

KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
SURAYA OTHMAN JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA

  • For the appellant - Zainur Zakaria, Coli Victor George & Phung Zhu Yen Grace; M/s Colin Victor & Co
  • For the respondent - Raymond Mah & Prisilla Chong; M/s Mah Weng Kwai & Assocs

The purpose of ss. 17 and 64 of the Sabah Land Ordinance is to protect native ownership of land held under native title and customary tenure. However, the provisions do not expressly outlaw the bank from financing such a transaction. The illegality of the sale of the native titles does not taint all the loan agreements and the related security documents to the extent that the bank could not recover the outstanding loans. Even if the loan agreements were tainted with illegality, there is restitutionary relief available to the bank.
Public Bank Bhd v. Ria Realiti Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 772 [CA]

CONTRACT: Agreement - Loan - Illegal loan agreement - Purchase of native titles on behalf of company - Sale and purchase agreements entered into illegal and in contravention of ss. 17 and 64 of Land Ordinance (Sabah) (Cap 68) - Whether borrower could argue that bank intended to breach s. 24 of Contracts Act 1950 by advancing unlawful purpose in granting loan - Whether illegality of sale of native titles tainted loan agreements and related security documents - Whether bank could recover outstanding loans - Whether bank could seek restitutionary relief - Whether bank entitled to outstanding sums

 

 

 

AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA

  • For the appellant - Simon Shim, Pearl Lee Chee Shia & Shim Mong Seng; M/s Shim, Pang & Co
  • For the 2nd & 3rd respondents - Ryan Soo; M/s RYCO Law Firm
  • For the 4th & 5th respondents - Norbert Yapp; M/s Norbert Yapp & Assocs

In Malaysia, when requesting for the issuance of a warrant of arrest in an admiralty action in rem, there is no requirement for full and frank disclosure and the arresting party only has to demonstrate that he has complied with O. 60 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The arresting party may, as of right, have a warrant of arrest issued so long as the requirements of the rule are met.
Premium Vegetable Oils Sdn Bhd v. The Owners And/Or Demise Charterers Of The Ship Or Vessel “Ever Concord” (Imo No. 9033347) Of The Port Of Zanzibar, Tanzania [2021] 3 CLJ 803 [HC]

|

SHIPPING: Action in rem - Warrant of arrest - Full and frank disclosure - Requirement - Mouldy cargo - Allegations that cargo contaminated by seawater - Vessel arrested - Whether vessel fully responsible for damages arising from contamination of cargo during voyage - Whether there was any requirement for full and frank disclosure on arresting party when requesting for issuance of warrant of arrest - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b) & (d)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Setting aside - Application for - Application to set aside writ in rem and warrant of arrest - Allegations that cargo contaminated by seawater - Vessel arrested - Whether vessel fully responsible for damages arising from contamination of cargo during voyage - Whether there was any requirement for full and frank disclosure on arresting party when requesting for issuance of warrant of arrest - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(b) & (d)

 

 

ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD JC

  • For the plaintiff - Oon Thian Seng & Lionel Navin Noel; M/s T S Oon & Partners
  • For the defendant - J Shamesh, Kumarappan Ramasamy & Rasyithira Sivaji Ganesan (Pupil in Chambers); M/s Jeeva Partnership

The legal status of a government agency such as FELDA, which is a beacon for safeguarding public interest and transparency, intensifies the necessity of the court to be extra critical in scrutinising the issue of the enforceability of a development agreement which contains obligations FELDA is statutorily bound to appropriately perform. If the development agreement is allegedly tainted with fraud and conspiracies, and questions arise regarding the very integrity of the entire transaction leading to the development agreement, it would be unfitting for the court to simply summarily order the specific performance of an agreement when there was indeed a serious conflict of material facts which could only be resolved by a careful and complete course of witness examinations vide a full trial.
Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd v. Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 821 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Application for specific performance of development agreement ('DA') - Whether DA tainted with fraud and conspiracies - Whether consent of Minister sought or obtained before execution of DA - Whether there was contravention of s. 3 of Land Development Act 1956 - Whether claim time barred by virtue of s. 2 of Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Whether DA enforceable or liable to be set aside - Whether public policy requires court to meticulously scrutinise DA and determine its legality - Whether serious and triable issues arose - Whether application for summary judgment ought to be dismissed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 81

CONTRACT: Agreement - Development agreement ('DA') - Specific performance - Application for summary judgment pursuant to O. 81 of Rules of Court 2012 for decree of specific performance of DA - Whether DA tainted with fraud and conspiracies - Whether consent of Minister sought or obtained before execution of DA - Whether there was contravention of s. 3 of Land Development Act 1956 - Whether claim time barred by virtue of s. 2 of Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Whether DA enforceable or liable to be set aside - Whether public policy requires court to meticulously scrutinise DA and determine its legality - Whether serious and triable issues arose - Whether application for summary judgment ought to be dismissed

 

 

AZIMAH OMAR J

  • For the plaintiff - Amrit Pal Singh, Austen Pereira & Ng Jun Wei; M/s Amrit & Co
  • For the defendants - Kumar Kanagasingam & Michele Yee; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

The Federal Constitution and the internal mechanisms within the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat has removed from the courts the jurisdiction to decide on any matter that concerns parliamentary proceedings. Parliament is the ultimate arbiter of any proceedings in Parliament and hence, only Parliament has the power or jurisdiction to elect and/or to dismiss a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat. The validity of any proceeding in the Parliament and the Legislative assembly is therefore not justiciable.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad & Ors v. Datuk Azhar Azizan Harun & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 852 [HC]

|

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Appointment of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Dewan Rakyat - Validity of election process - Whether could be questioned by courts - Whether validity of proceeding in Parliament and Legislative assembly justiciable - Whether Parliament determines removal and election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker - Whether Dewan Rakyat acted within powers conferred by Federal Constitution and Standing Orders of Dewan Rakyat - Whether Parliament ultimate arbiter of any proceeding in Parliament - Federal Constitution, arts. 57 & 63(1)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out originating summons seeking orders that appointment of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Dewan Rakyat unconstitutional - Validity of election process of Speaker and Deputy Speaker - Whether could be questioned by courts - Whether validity of proceeding in Parliament and Legislative assembly justiciable - Whether Parliament determines removal and election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker - Whether Dewan Rakyat acted within powers conferred by Federal Constitution and Standing Orders of Dewan Rakyat - Whether Parliament ultimate arbiter of any proceeding in Parliament - Federal Constitution, arts. 57 & 63(1)

 

 

AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J

  • For the plaintiffs - Mohd Haniff Khatri Abdulla, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, Akif Rusli & Nurmustanir Md Nor; M/s Law Practice of Rafique
  • For the 1st & 3rd defendants - Amer Hamzah Arshad, New Sin Yew, Hoe Sue Lu & Lee Yee Woei; M/s AmerBON
  • For the 2nd & 4th defendants - Tania Scivetti & Syazwani Mohd Zawawi; M/s Scivetti Assocs

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. MANAGING EXPERT WITNESS IN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING DISPUTES* [Read excerpt]
    by Lim Chee Yong** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xli

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

    MANAGING EXPERT WITNESS IN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING DISPUTES*

    by
    Lim Chee Yong**

    Expert witnesses have been thrust into the limelight in recent years, reflecting the sustained rise in construction arbitrations both domestically[1] and internationally.[2] In international construction and engineering arbitrations, disputes are often technically and factually complex. Expert witnesses are therefore the norm and not the exception. Expert evidence alone does not determine the entire outcome of an arbitration. However, the increasingly heavy reliance on expert evidence by tribunals and parties makes the effective handling and execution by counsel of the overall expert process a critical factor for a successful outcome. This article details some of the best practices for selecting expert witnesses, managing the party-expert relationship before a hearing, and handling expert witnesses during a hearing.

    . . .

    * This article was originally published in January 2021 in Arbitration in Malaysia: The Way Forward by the International Arbitration Practice of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

    ** Associate, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill; Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya; called to the Bar of England and Wales (lhy@lh-ag.com).

  3. SEXUALITY EDUCATION: A CLASH BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND "ASIAN VALUES" [Read excerpt]
    by T. Shanmugam* Shahrul Mizan Ismail** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xlii

  4. [2021] 1 LNS(A) xlii
    logo
    International

    SEXUALITY EDUCATION:
    A CLASH BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND "ASIAN VALUES"


    by
    T. Shanmugam*
    Shahrul Mizan Ismail**

    ABSTRACT

    One of the most controversial topics that education experts and politicians have been debating about is whether sexuality education should be taught in schools. It is a dicey and sensitive subject. On the one hand "the international human rights organizations" recognize the importance of sexuality education by including this component either explicitly or impliedly in a number of international human rights declarations. This stance is based on the premise that sexuality education is also crucial in the development and well-being of children and therefore should be guaranteed. This article critically analyses the clash of values in implementing sexuality education in schools in several jurisdictions in Asian countries. It is apparent that the Asian countries appear to have a different standpoint based on the pretext of "Asian values" to implement sexuality education in schools as opposed to the international declarations. This article concisely discusses sexuality education within the context of the cultural relativism theory as Asian nations generally claim they have the right to interpret human rights in the context of their cultural and religious values without being tied to the universality of human rights. Since this study will be a socio-legal study, a qualitative method will be used to explain the issues.

    . . .

    * Postgraduate student, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia.

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

  5. SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHT OF INSPECTION IN PRIVATE COMPANIES IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by Nicholas Tan Choi Chuan* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xliii

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

    SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHT OF INSPECTION IN PRIVATE COMPANIES IN MALAYSIA

    by
    Nicholas Tan Choi Chuan*

    1.0 Introduction

    In an early English case, the Court held that "every member of the corporation had, as such, the right to look into the books of the corporation for any matter that concerned himself, though it was in a dispute, with others".[1] Therefore, it is well recognized that one of the most fundamental rights a shareholder has is the right of inspection. This involves inspecting the documents and records of the company, thus providing a means in which shareholders can investigate fraud, mismanagement, misappropriation of funds and breach of fiduciary duties by the directors. This right was first developed in England from two sources:

    . . .

    * Nicholas Tan Choi Chuan is a practicing lawyer in the area of Corporate/M&A in a law firm in Malaysia. Linkedln: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-tan-a5016229/.

  7. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC & LOCKDOWN POLICIES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT [Read excerpt]
    by Deddy Firdaus Yulianto* Assoc. Prof Dr Shahrul Mizan bin Ismail** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xliv

  8. [2021] 1 LNS(A) xliv
    logo
    INTERNATIONAL

    THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC & LOCKDOWN POLICIES:
    A CRITICAL ANALYSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT


    by
    Deddy Firdaus Yulianto*
    Assoc. Prof Dr Shahrul Mizan bin Ismail**

    Abstract

    In early 2020, the world was shocked by the COVID-19 pandemic that started in Wuhan, Hubei Province, which then spread rapidly to various countries. The spread of this disease has had broad social and economic impact. Many countries have implemented lockdowns as one of the steps to reduce the spread of transmission and death due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of a lockdown policy has been argued by some to be a violation of human rights, especially in the context of the freedom to move, but on the other hand, the lockdown policy has prevented the transmission of COVID-19 and ensured the right to health. From the point of view of human rights law, the author will provide an explanation of the lockdown policy taken by a country as a human rights violation, but in handling the COVID-19 pandemic it is deemed necessary to reduce the number of transmissions for the health of its citizens. This article applies the qualitative method of research to analyze the extent to which the lockdown policy is a violation of human rights or vice versa, and to discuss the lockdown policy as a measure taken to protect citizens so they can live healthily.

    . . .

    * Master of Law Candidate, Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (deddy.fy@gmail.com).

    ** Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (shahrulmizan@ukm.edu.my).

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 (CCOVID-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 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 174/2021] 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)


PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 184/2021 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Collector of Stamp Duties 31 March 2021 Specified in column (3) of the Schedule ACT 378
PU(B) 183/2021 Delegation of Powers Under Section 5 31 March 2021 1 April 2021 ACT 358
PU(B) 182/2021 Notification Under Subsection 6A(2) 31 March 2021 1 April 2021 ACT 172
PU(B) 181/2021 Temporary Exercise of Ministerial Functions 31 March 2021 1 April 2021 ACT 388
PU(B) 180/2021 Appointment Under Subsection 134(2) 31 March 2021 Specified in column (3) of the Schedule ACT 53

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 12/2021 Ordinan Darurat (Kuasa-Kuasa Perlu) 2021 PU(A) 151/2021 31 Mac 2021 Seksyen baharu 10A dan 10B
PU(A) 12/2021 Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 2021 PU(A) 151/2021 31 March 2021 New sections 10A and 10B
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) 150/2021 31 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) 150/2021 31 March 2021 First Schedule
PU(A) 97/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 4) 2021 PU(A) 149/2021 30 Mac 2021 Jadual Pertama

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