|
Issue #3/2021
21 January 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
|
EASY VISTA SDN BHD v. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD [2021] 1 CLJ 453
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MARY LIM JCA; HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: J-02(NCVC)(W)-1212-07-2019]
12 FEBRUARY 2020
The entry upon land by the utility provider to erect pylon cables for their electricity transmission lines was valid pursuant to s. 11 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('Act') and the compensation order was valid and binding on all parties; in the absence of any irregularity in the service of the First Schedule notice pursuant to s. 11(2) of the Act, an inquiry to hear any objections was rendered unnecessary; thus, any action for trespass was bound to fail.
TORT: Trespass to land - Installation of pylon and cables - Claim for compensation - Whether entry on land for installation of pylon and cables valid and lawful - Issuance of First Schedule Notice pursuant to s. 11(2) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Absence of objection against notice - Whether necessitated specific date for hearing objections - Whether negated complaint of trespass or continuing trespass - Whether subsequent purchaser of land aware or complained of trespass and continuing trespass - Whether subsequent purchaser entitled to compensation
DALAM PERKARA SIASATAN/INKUES TERHADAP KEMATIAN; BENEDICT THANILA [2021] 1 CLJ 594
MAHKAMAH KHAS KORONER, KUALA LUMPUR
MAHYON TALIB MJ
[INKUES NO: WA-65B-1-06-2019]
30 OCTOBER 2020
Anggota polis, khususnya pegawai-pegawai yang bertugas di lokap bertanggungjawab memberi rawatan dan perhatian kesihatan kepada tahanan-tahanan yang menghidap penyakit berisiko tinggi serta mempunyai penyakit kronik. Ini termasuk memberi ubat-ubatan kepada mereka khasnya jika tahanan-tahanan ini mempunyai kebergantungan penuh pada ubat-ubatan untuk hidup. Kegagalan/ketinggalan pihak lokap mengambil tindakan wajar memastikan kesihatan tahanan, dalam kes-kes kematian semasa dalam tahanan, disifatkan sebagai menyumbang pada kematian tahanan tersebut.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Inkues - Inkues kematian - Mahkamah khas koroner - Si mati ditangkap dan ditahan di lokap - Si mati tidak sihat, berpenyakit kronik dan memerlukan pelbagai ubat untuk hidup - Si mati meninggal dunia ketika dalam tahanan di lokap - Sama ada anggota polis tahu tentang keadaan kesihatan si mati - Sama ada anggota polis memberi ubat kepada si mati - Sama ada terdapat ketinggalan/pengabaian oleh anggota polis - Sama ada ketinggalan/kegagalan anggota polis menyumbang pada kematian si mati - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 337
-
Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Sepang And Other Appeals [2018] 1 LNS 1999 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Sepang [Guaman No: MT 15-27-11/2014, MT 15-28-11/2014, MT 15-29-11/2014, MT 15-30-11/2014]
-
Mahendran V Markandoo v. Jegatheeswary Markandoo & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 2000 (CA) overruling the High Court case of Dr. Mahendran A/L v. Markandoo v. Jegatheeswary A/P Markandoo & Ors [Guaman Sivil No: 22 NCVC-436-08/2015]
Legal Network Series
|
MOHD SAIDI MOHD SIDEK lwn. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN Tiada kehendak undang-undang untuk Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah menyatakan pemohon perlu kawalan dan pengawasan di dalam perintah pengawasan polis. Apabila tiada kehendak sedemikian, maka ketiadaan pernyataan formal tersebut bukan merupakan satu ketidakpatuhan prosedur. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah pengawasan polis - Permohonan pembatalan - Pengawasan polis dan kawalan pergerakan untuk tempoh 3 tahun - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan dalam penyerahan dapatan pegawai inkuiri kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('LPJ') - Sama ada ketiadaan pernyataan bahawa pemohon perlu kawalan dan pengawasan di dalam perintah pengawasan polis oleh LPJ merupakan ketidakpatuhan s. 15(1) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 - Sama ada pengeluaran perintah pengawasan polis adalah kuasa budibicara LPJ - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan prosedur berhubung perintah pengawasan polis yang dikeluarkan oleh LPJ
|
|
|
PURATA ABADI SDN BHD lwn. SEDAYA INTAN SDN BHD Akaun muktamad yang disediakan oleh juru ukur bahan berdasarkan maklumat yang diberikan oleh plaintif semata-mata dan tanpa melawat tapak projek tidak boleh disandar sepenuhnya untuk membuktikan tuntutan plaintif untuk bayaran kerja-kerja pembinaan dan kerugian mesin-mesin di tapak pembinaan. KONTRAK: Pembinaan - Tuntutan untuk - Bayaran kerja-kerja pembinaan dan kerugian mesin-mesin di tapak pembinaan - Penyandaran kepada akaun muktamad - Akaun muktamad disediakan oleh juru ukur bahan tanpa melawat tapak projek - Juru ukur bahan mengakui menyediakan laporan berdasarkan maklumat yang diberikan oleh plaintif - Sama ada akaun muktamad yang disediakan oleh juru ukur boleh disandar sepenuhnya - Sama ada jumlah yang dinyatakan di dalam akaun muktamad adalah dipertikaikan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Bicara - Budi bicara - Penangguhan - Hakim bicara enggan membenarkan permohonan penangguhan singkat kes berikutan ketidakhadiran saksi-saksi - Saksi berada dalam cuti sakit - Saksi baru dapat dikesan alamat terkini dan gagal untuk diserahkan sepina - Sama ada hakim bicara telah terkhilaf apabila enggan membenarkan permohonan penangguhan atas ketidakhadiran saksi-saksi - Sama ada hakim bicara tidak menggunakan budi bicaranya secara kehakiman berhubung penangguhan
|
|
|
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD lwn. LONG ISMAIL LONG OMAR & SATU LAGI Mahkamah Perusahaan mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk menggantikan keputusan pembuangan kerja oleh pihak majikan dengan memakai doktrin kesepadanan hukuman. Apabila keputusan pembuangan kerja terhadap pekerja adalah tidak munasabah dan tidak bersepadanan dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan, maka hukuman pembuangan kerja wajar digantikan oleh Mahkamah Perusahaan. UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan yang memutuskan bahawa hukuman pembuangan kerja terhadap pekerja adalah terlalu berat dan tidak wajar - Pekerja dibuang kerja kerana mengeluarkan bil elektrik anggaran - Majikan tidak mengalami sebarang kerugian - Sama ada Mahkamah Perusahaan mempunyai kuasa untuk menggantikan keputusan pembuangan kerja oleh majikan - Sama ada keputusan penbuangan kerja adalah bersepadanan dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan - Sama ada rekod perkhidmatan pekerja merupakan satu faktor untuk dipertimbangkan bagi menentukan keputusan pembuangan kerja oleh majikan adalah munasabah
|
|
|
ANJUR PIMPIN SDN BHD v. ABDULLAH KAMIL CHE IBRAHIM FIKRI & ORS A shareholder who entered into a contract for a company for sums exceeding RM50,000 without the approval or consent of the majority shareholders through resolution in a general meeting as required by the shareholders' agreement, and further failing to cause the board of directors to prepare proper audited accounts relating to the affairs of the company, amounts to breach of the shareholders' agreement. COMPANY LAW: Member's right - Shareholders - Breach of shareholders' agreement - Defendant entered contract for company for sums exceeding RM50,000 without approval of majority shareholders as required by shareholders' agreement - Failure to cause board of directors to prepare proper audited accounts relating to affairs of company - Whether defendant had breached shareholders' agreement - Whether plaintiff should have brought derivative action against defendant - Whether plaintiff was able to prove damage
|
|
|
YEOH GAIK TIN @ TAO YONG v. KHAW HOCK CHYE & ANOR 1. The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable where the plaintiff had filed a fresh action seeking similar relief via an application in previous proceedings that was not heard on the merits and when the Court in the previous proceedings had specifically ordered for refiling of a fresh action. 2. The plaintiff has a right to request from defendant's solicitors the details and deductions from proceeds of sale when the deductions resulted in less surplus due to the plaintiff and such request does not fall within legal professional privilege under s. 126 of the Evidence Act 1950. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Action - Relief sought in present action was similar to relief sought in an application in previous proceedings - Application in previous proceedings was dismissed as court was functus officio and court ordered fresh action to be filed - Whether doctrine of res judicata applicable - Whether reliefs sought were decided on merits in previous proceeding EVIDENCE: Privilege - Legal professional privilege - Request from solicitors to provide an account of proceeds of sale of lands including deductions with supporting documents - Deductions resulted in a lesser surplus due to plaintiff - Whether plaintiff has a right to information sought - Whether plaintiff is entitled to an account of deductions - Whether request made by plaintiff falls within legal professional privilege - Evidence Act 1950, s. 126
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 1 (Part 4)
The entry upon land by the utility provider to erect pylon cables for their electricity transmission lines was valid pursuant to s. 11 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('Act') and the compensation order was valid and binding on all parties; in the absence of any irregularity in the service of the First Schedule notice pursuant to s. 11(2) of the Act, an inquiry to hear any objections was rendered unnecessary; thus, any action for trespass was bound to fail.
Easy Vista Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2021] 1 CLJ 453 [CA]
TORT: Trespass to land - Installation of pylon and cables - Claim for compensation - Whether entry on land for installation of pylon and cables valid and lawful - Issuance of First Schedule Notice pursuant to s. 11(2) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Absence of objection against notice - Whether necessitated specific date for hearing objections - Whether negated complaint of trespass or continuing trespass - Whether subsequent purchaser of land aware or complained of trespass and continuing trespass - Whether subsequent purchaser entitled to compensation
MARY LIM JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
- For the appellant - Ng Chew Hor & Chin Yew Kuan; M/s Y K Chin
- For the respondent - Alvin John & Rubachandran Govindasamy; M/s Alvin John & Partners
Order 42 r. 13 of the Rules of Court 2012 does not apply to an inter partes order which is made pursuant to an application which had been heard on merits and is not an avenue for an unsuccessful party to seek a 'review' of an adverse decision.
Halim Saad v. Chan Yok Peng [2021] 1 CLJ 499 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Setting aside - Whether judgment/order obtained on merits - Whether application to set aside judgment/order fundamentally flawed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 42 r. 13 - Whether applicable - Whether avenue for unsuccessful party to seek review of adverse decision - Whether High Court functus officio - Whether matter barred by res judicata - Whether appeal devoid of merits
KAMARDIN HASHIM JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
CHE RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
- For the appellant - Khalid Yusoff & Mohd Faiz Iskandar; M/s Arief & Iskandar
- For the respondent - Muhammad Syafiq Amani Md Sabri; M/s Mahadi Redzuan & Co
Section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 seeks to safeguard the interests and rights of third parties so that they must be notified and told of the grounds upon which the validity of an insurance policy is impugned. Hence, the insurance company could not avail itself of the benefit and protection of the proviso to s. 96(3) when it failed to serve the required statutory notice together with the grounds relied on for avoiding its obligations to satisfy a judgment obtained by a third party, as such an omission clearly contravened the mandatory requirements of s. 96(3).
Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd v. Arnanda Soria Demadu [2021] 1 CLJ 523 [CA]
INSURANCE: Motor insurance - Policy - Rights of third party - Insurance company granted declaratory order nullifying insurance policy which it would have been obliged to honour - Failure of insurance company to serve notice under s. 96(3) of Road Transport Act 1987 before commencement of its originating summons - Whether mandatory requirements under s. 96(3) complied with - Whether insurance company entitled to protection and benefit under s. 96(3)
MARY LIM JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
- For the appellant - R Kamalanathan & Vinod R Kamalanathan; M/s Vinod Kamalanathan & Assocs
- For the respondent - Rajan Ayappan & G Naidu; M/s Mano Veera & Co
Pelanggaran syarat Pas Lawatan Kerja Sementara, satu kesalahan peraturan 39(b) Peraturan Imigresen 1963, mewajarkan pembatalan pas dengan serta merta dan pesalah perlu diusir keluar ke negara asal. Pelaksanaan kuasa budi bicara mutlak pihak berkuasa dalam mengeluarkan perintah pengusiran dan perintah penahanan, masing-masing bawah ss. 56 dan 34 Akta Imigresen 1959, tidak akan dipersoalkan mahkamah dengan sewenang-wenangnya.
Aman Ullah lwn. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen Malaysia & Yang Lain [2021] 1 CLJ 542 [HC]
IMIGRESEN: Penahanan - Perintah pengusiran dan perintah penahanan - Sama ada penahanan mematuhi prosedur bawah Akta Imigresen 1959 - Penahanan akibat pelanggaran syarat Pas Lawatan Kerja Sementara ('PLKS') - Kesalahan bawah peraturan 39(b) Peraturan-Peraturan Imigresen 1963 - Sama ada PLKS boleh dibatalkan dengan serta merta - Sama ada siasatan membuktikan pelanggaran syarat PLKS - Sama ada alasan pengeluaran perintah dizahirkan - Sama ada kuasa budi bicara mutlak Ketua Pengarah Imigresen dilaksanakan secara wajar - Sama ada terdapat ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Akta Imigresen 1959, ss. 9(1)(b), 34 & 35
NOORIN BADARUDDIN H
- Bagi pihak pemohon - T Harpal Singh; T/n T Harpal & Assocs
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - Ainaa Lutfiah Mohamed Zulkali; TPR
The category of land use under the National Land Code is not the determining factor for tariff rates of premises. Electricity supplied for maintenance and management of common property and common facilities warrant the imposition of commercial tariff rates.
Hiliran Juara Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2021] 1 CLJ 565 [HC]
UTILITIES: Electricity - Charges - Claim against developer for usage at common facility of apartment project - Category of tariff - Whether residential or commercial - Whether electricity supplied for maintenance and management of common property and common facilities - Whether fall under commercial tariff
LIMITATION: Action - Cause of action - Running account - Whether limitation period set in - Whether action barred by limitation
TEE GEOK HOCK JC
- For the appellant - S Gurdial; M/s Gurdial Sohan & Co
- For the respondent - Chong Kah Yee; M/s Shui Tai
1. The application for leave for a judicial review of the Land Administrator's decision in rejecting the applicant's application to be registered as the proprietor of her late father's property, despite a High Court's order giving her leave to have the said property transferred to her which resulted in her suffering a dilemma, was clearly not frivolous or vexatious, and was filed within the three months prescribed by O. 53. r. 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012. The court, in not folding its arms and sending the applicant away with her seemingly deprived of her fundamental right, relied upon the inherent powers it has under the equivalent r. 137 of the Federal Court Rules, which is O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.
2. It was in order for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review and in the alternative, an extension of time in one single application because even if an extension of time has to be first pursued, it would serve to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the action.
Menaka Deivarayan v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bagan Datuk, Perak & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 577 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for leave - Applicant, a foreign national inheriting deceased father's land, obtained consent from court for land to be transferred to her - Applicant applied to Land Administrator for land to be transferred to her - Land Administrator rejected application but notice of decision of rejection issued to deceased father - Applicant applied to Land Administrator to reconsider - Decision by Land Administrator rejecting application for reconsideration issued to applicant - Whether time for application for judicial review commenced from notice of rejection issued to deceased father or to applicant - Whether application filed within time prescribed - Whether there was good reason to extend time - Whether application premature, frivolous or vexatious - Whether leave to apply for judicial review ought to be given - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(6)
LAND LAW: Transfer of land - Consent to transfer - Decision of Land Administrator rejecting application for consent to transfer to child beneficiary - Deprivation of property - Whether amounted to compulsory land acquisition
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review - Application for leave - Time - Land dispute - Whether time taken to resolve dispute with Land Administrator ought to be discounted in computation of time under O. 53 r. 3(6) Rules of Court 2012 - Whether justice of case applies to discount such time as the applicant would be deprived of inheritance - Whether applicant ought to file application for extension of time first before filing her application for leave to apply for judicial review - Whether both applications could be rolled up in one application
SU TIANG JOO JC
- For the applicant - K Shanmuga & Dinesh Kumar Paramasivam; M/s Kanesalingam & Co & Hezlin Haldi; SFC
- For the respondents - Suhaila Haron; Assistant State Legal Advisor, Perak
Anggota polis, khususnya pegawai-pegawai yang bertugas di lokap bertanggungjawab memberi rawatan dan perhatian kesihatan kepada tahanan-tahanan yang menghidap penyakit berisiko tinggi serta mempunyai penyakit kronik. Ini termasuk memberi ubat-ubatan kepada mereka khasnya jika tahanan-tahanan ini mempunyai kebergantungan penuh pada ubat-ubatan untuk hidup. Kegagalan/ketinggalan pihak lokap mengambil tindakan wajar memastikan kesihatan tahanan, dalam kes-kes kematian semasa dalam tahanan, disifatkan sebagai menyumbang pada kematian tahanan tersebut.
Dalam Perkara Siasatan/Inkues Terhadap Kematian; Benedict Thanilas [2021] 1 CLJ 594
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Inkues - Inkues kematian - Mahkamah khas koroner - Si mati ditangkap dan ditahan di lokap - Si mati tidak sihat, berpenyakit kronik dan memerlukan pelbagai ubat untuk hidup - Si mati meninggal dunia ketika dalam tahanan di lokap - Sama ada anggota polis tahu tentang keadaan kesihatan si mati - Sama ada anggota polis memberi ubat kepada si mati - Sama ada terdapat ketinggalan/pengabaian oleh anggota polis - Sama ada ketinggalan/kegagalan anggota polis menyumbang pada kematian si mati - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, s. 337
MAHYON TALIB MJ
- Bagi pihak Jabatan Peguam Negara - Nurliyana Mohd Jafri; TPR
LNS Article(s)
-
THE OWNERSHIP OF A POST-MORTEM REPORT [Read excerpt]
by Namirah Hanum Binti Mohamed Albaki[i] Noor Hasliza Binti Mohd Yusoff[ii] Ong Guan Boon[iii] Zuhair Bin Rosli[iv] [2021] 1 LNS(A) x -
THE BAGGAGE OF POPULARITY - INSTAGRAM'S POTENTIAL LIABILITIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AS AN ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER [Read excerpt]
by JACQUELINE HANNAH ALBERT, JOYCE KUNG ZHI YAN, TAN JIA SHEN* [2021] 1 LNS(A) ix -
NON-SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT THE WORKPLACE: POTENTIAL REMEDIES FOR VICTIMS [Read excerpt]
by Cynthia Lee Mei Fei* Amanda Pang** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xi
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 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 |
| ACT A1629 | Excise (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 718/2020] | ACT 176 |
| ACT A1628 | Customs (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 717/2020] | ACT 235 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 12/2021 | Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 2021 | 14 January 2021 | 11 January 2021 | ACT 000 |
| PU(A) 11/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Compounding of Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 | 12 January 2021 | 13 January 2021 | PU(A) 327/1993 |
| PU(A) 10/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) Regulations 2021 | 12 January 2021 | 13 January 2021 to 31 March 2021 | ACT 342 |
| PU(A) 9/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) Regulations 2021 | 12 January 2021 | 13 January 2021 to 26 January 2021 | ACT 342 |
| PU(A) 8/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) Regulations 2021 | 12 January 2021 | 13 January 2021 to 26 January 2021 | ACT 342 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 39/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 31225 Place Kampung Tanjung Aru | 20 January 2021 | 21 January 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 38/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 6302 Place Jalan Tenaga, Bandar Labuan | 20 January 2021 | 21 January 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 37/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 6301 Place Jalan Tenaga, Bandar Labuan | 20 January 2021 | 21 January 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 36/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 480632 Mukim Kuala Lumpur | 20 January 2021 | 21 January 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 35/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 81535 Mukim Batu | 20 January 2021 | 21 January 2021 | ACT 828 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 212/2019 | Customs Duties (Goods Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Between Asean and China) Order 2019 | PU(A) 424/2020 | 1 January 2021 | Second Schedule |
| PU(A) 214/2018 | Service Tax Regulations 2018 | PU(A) 422/2020 | 1 January 2021 | Regulation 11 |
| PU(A) 408/2017 | Stamp Duty (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2017 | PU(A) 421/2020 | 1 January 2021 | Paragraph 2 |
| PU(A) 206/2018 | Sales Tax (Imposition of Sales Tax in Respect of Designated Areas) Order 2018 | PU(A) 420/2020 | 1 January 2021 | Paragraph 2 |
| PU(A) 269/2019 | Service Tax (Digital Services) Regulations 2019 | PU(A) 419/2020 | 1 January 2021 | Heading of Part IIA & Part III, regulation 5A & 10, new regulation 6A |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(B) 120/2020 | Appointment of Deputy Director General of the Board | PU(B) 712/2020 | 1 December 2020 |
| PU(B) 58/2017 | Prescription of Amount of Indebtedness of Company | PU(B) 711/2020 | 1 January 2021 |
| PU(B) 166/2019 | Exemption Under Section 65U | PU(B) 592/2020 | 15 November 2020 |
| PU(A) 298/2019 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) (No. 4) Order 2019 | PU(A) 332/2020 | 30 November 2020 |
| PU(A) 229/2020 | Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control of Koperasi Automobil Kuching Sarawak Berhad) (Reappointment) Order 2020 | PU(A) 331/2020 | 30 November 2020 |