Back to Top

Issue #42/2021
21 October 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

TENAGA NASIONAL BHD v. EVERGROWTH AQUACULTURE SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS [2021] 9 CLJ 179
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ;
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 02(f)-34-05-2018(W), 02(f)-23-03-2020(B), 02(f)-6-02-2021(J) & 02(f)-8-02-2021(J)]
08 SEPTEMBER 2021

The appellant electricity supplier (TNB) may rely on reg. 7 of the Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 to enter a consumer's premises with a view of obtaining a remedy under s. 38 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA') without having to comply with the requirements of ss. 5 and 6 of ESA. Reading reg. 7(a) harmoniously with s. 38 and ss. 5 and 6 dictates that TNB's power under s. 38 to enter a premise to determine whether its meter has been tampered with, being a civil claim jurisdiction, is separate from, not subject to and has nothing to do with the Electricity Commission's criminal enforcement jurisdiction to investigate the commission of offences under ss. 5 and 6 of ESA; hence, no issue of trespass could have arisen from non-compliance of the two sections. This said, the utility of reg. 7 cannot be restricted to the business or operational hours of the consumer. The latitude as granted by reg. 7 for TNB to inspect premises 'at any reasonable time' must be read in the context of 'during the continuance of supply' in the heading of the regulation; since there is always a continuance of supply of electricity even outside the business or operational hours of the consumer, the power to inspect cannot be limited to or stymied by those hours.

UTILITIES: Electricity - Tampering of meter - Claims of loss of revenue - Whether electricity supplier could rely on reg. 7 of Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 ('LSR') to enter consumer's premise to obtain remedy under s. 38(3) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA') without complying with requirements under s. 5 - Whether phrase 'at all reasonable times' in reg. 7 of LSR allows electricity supplier to conduct inspection of meter during operational activity or business hours of consumer - Discovery of metal clamp affixed to meter at consumer's premises - Whether sufficient in law to hold that there was meter tampering for purposes of s. 38(1) and 38(3) of ESA - Whether limitation starts to run from date meter was tampered with or from date meter tampering allegedly discovered - Whether aggravated or exemplary damages must be pleaded


JUDICIAL QUOTES

"In my considered view, s. 235 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 merely protects the network facilities from wrongful acts or omissions which have the effect of altering or tampering with the network facilities and from wrongful acts of mischief which have the effect of destroying, damaging or interfering with the lawful operation of the network facilities. Implicit in s. 235 is that the network facilities have been duly licensed by the Commission and are lawfully erected and continued at the land with the consent or agreement of the landowner. It is not the intent of s. 235 to deprive any landowner of his proprietary rights after the expiry of the lease, tenancy or permit previously granted to the network provider who erected the network facilities on the landowner's land. Similarly, s. 235 is not intended to empower the network provider to compel a landowner to let the network provider continue to use the land for operating the network facilities without the landowner's consent or agreement after the expiry of the previous lease, tenancy or licence or permit. I cannot find any express words in s. 235 of CMA which can be interpreted to that effect according to their natural and ordinary meaning" – per Tee Geok Hock JC in Konsortium Jaringan Selangor Sdn Bhd v. Projek Lintasan Sungai Besi-Ulu Klang Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 CLJ 527

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 1231

JEFFRY ABDULLAH lwn. PP

Saksi yang hanya memainkan peranan untuk memerangkap seorang anggota badan awam atas arahan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia dalam satu perbuatan jenayah tidak boleh dikatakan mempunyai mens rea untuk turut melakukan perbuatan jenayah tersebut. Justeru, saksi perangkap tersebut bukanlah seorang rakan sejenayah dan keterangannya tidak memerlukan sokongan.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Pemerolehan suapan secara rasuah - Pegawai polis secara rasuah memperoleh suapan wang tunai untuk diri sendiri sebagai dorongan untuk tidak melakukan perbuatan berhubungan dengan hal-ehwal prinsipal - Kegagalan memastikan barang kes dijaga rapi dan tidak tercemar - Sama ada tertuduh telah melakukan satu perbuatan yang melanggar hal-ehwal prinsipalnya - Sama ada perbuatan meminta suapan oleh tertuduh telah disaksikan oleh saksi-saksi - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 50 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah 2009 terpakai terhadap tertuduh

PERKATAAN DAN ISTILAH: Hal-ehwal prinsipal - Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah 2009, s. 17(a) - Sama ada merujuk kepada bidang tugas yang ditetapkan oleh prinsipal dan satu badan awam - Sama ada bermakna hal-ehwal atau urusan badan awam yang dianggotai oleh tertuduh

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rakan sejenayah - Saksi - Pertuduhan pemerolehan suapan secara rasuah - Suapan berlaku terhadap tertuduh adalah atas arahan pihak Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia - Saksi hanya memainkan peranan untuk memerangkap anggota polis dalam satu perbuatan jenayah - Sama ada saksi memiliki mens rea untuk melakukan perbuatan yang salah bersama-sama dengan tertuduh - Sama ada saksi telah bersekongkol untuk melakukan suatu dorongan atau hasutan kepada tertuduh untuk melakukan satu perbuatan jenayah - Sama ada saksi merupakan rakan sejenayah - Sama ada keterangan saksi perangkap memerlukan keterangan sokongan

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Sukri Mohamed & Melissa Sukri; T/n Wan Haron Sukri & Nordin
  • Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Azlan Basri, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya

[2019] 1 LNS 1264

KELVIN THOMAS lwn. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & YANG LAIN

Apabila s. 10(2) Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 tidak menyatakan sebarang keperluan prosedural berkenaan tempoh masa untuk pegawai inkuiri mengemukakan alasan-alasan dan dapatan inkuiri kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah, maka Mahkamah tidak mempunyai tugas untuk menetapkan satu keperluan prosedural masa untuk penyerahan alasan-alasan dan dapatan inkuiri tersebut.

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Pegawai inkuiri mengambil masa 36 hari untuk mengemukakan alasan-alasan dan dapatan inkuiri kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('LPJ') - Sama ada terdapat peruntukan berkenaan tempoh masa untuk pegawai inkuiri mengemukakan alasan-alasan dan dapatan inkuiri kepada LPJ - Sama ada Mahkamah boleh menetapkan satu keperluan prosedural masa penyerahan alasan-alasan dan dapatan inkuiri kepada LPJ - Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959, s. 10(2)

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Najib Zakaria; T/n Najib, Zakaria, Hisham & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Adilah Roslan; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan, Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia

[2020] 1 LNS 93

TAN KIM KEOW v. PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM MALAYSIA

An application for the refund of stamp duty concerning an executed instrument must specifically comply with the requirements of proviso (b) to s. 57 of the Stamp Act 1949. The Court and the Collector of Stamp Duty are not vested with the inherent jurisdiction or power to extend or enlarge the time frame imposed concerning an application for the refund of stamp duty as the Stamp Act 1949 itself does not have any provision, express or otherwise, that allows the Court or Collector of Stamp Duty to do so.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash decision of Collector of Stamp Duty rejecting application for refund of stamp duty - Stamp duty paid in connection with sale and purchase agreement of land - Application rejected as it was filed out of time - Whether decision in dismissing refund application was made within statutory power and limitation given to respondent under Stamp Act 1949

REVENUE LAW: Stamp duty - Refund - Stamp duty paid in connection with sale and purchase agreement of land - Consent judgment entered to declare sale and purchase agreement as void and to be cancelled - Application filed out of time - Whether refund application was caught under proviso (a) and (b) of s. 57 of Stamp Act 1949 - Whether applicant was entitled to refund of stamp duty

REVENUE LAW: Stamp duty - Refund - Time frame - Refund of stamp duty paid in connection with sale and purchase agreement of land which was cancelled - Sale and purchase agreement revoked by consent judgment - Application made two years after memorandum of transfer was executed - Whether refund application must be made within 12 months from date of memorandum of transfer - Whether time frame provided in proviso (a) to s. 57 of Stamp Act 1949 a mandatory provision - Whether Court has inherent jurisdiction to enlarge or extend time imposed for refund - Whether time frame could begin from date of consent judgment

  • For the applicant - Teh Lay Kheng & Derrick Jared (PDK); M/s Desmond Chan & Jeff Law
  • For the respondent - Norsyamimi Binti Bukhari, Peguam Hasil

[2020] 1 LNS 102

EXXIM (M) SDN BHD v. LEADMONT PROPERTIES SDN BHD

A winding-up proceeding is not a writ of execution, and as such, a stay of execution is not a legal impediment to, nor does it affect a winding-up proceeding.

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Stay of execution - Application filed pursuant to O. 45 r. 11 of Rules of Court 2012 - Application filed by way of notice of application instead of using forms of summons or motion as prescribed under r. 7 of Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972 - Whether winding-up proceeding is an execution - Whether stay of execution bears any legal impediment and effect over winding-up proceeding - Whether fear of losing business and reputation amounts to special circumstances which warrant stay of execution - Whether application defective

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Application to strike out winding-up petition - Respondent failed to quote relevant provision for striking out of winding-up petition - No reason provided in affidavit to support prayer for striking out - Whether there was any basis to allow striking out of winding-up petition

  • For the petitioner - Yap Boon Jhoe & Kevin De Rozario; M/s Khairuddin, Ngiam & Tan
  • For the respondent - Kunamony Kandiah; M/s Mohd Latip & Associates

[2020] 1 LNS 103

CHEW YEW YEK v. AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ANOR

A vendor owes a duty of care towards prospective bidders in respect of an auctioned property and must disclose the existence of any encumbrances to the property in the proclamation of sale. However, such duty of care does not exist when the encumbrances attached to the property could not have been discovered before the auction. In such circumstances, the property is deemed to be sold on an 'as is where is' basis. Consequently, the vendor has no duty to secure the removal of the encumbrances for the successful bidder.

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Judicial sale of land - Action by successful bidder against vendor for negligence - Encumbrance on property not disclosed in proclamation of sale - Encumbrance on property came to knowledge after auction - Whether vendor owes duty of care to successful bidder to secure removal of encumbrance - Whether vendor had breached any duty of care towards successful bidder - Whether negligence on part of vendor had been established

AUCTIONS AND AUCTIONEERS: Sale of land - Judicial sale of land - 'As is where is' basis - Charged property - Proclamation of sale - Encumbrance on property not disclosed in proclamation of sale - Encumbrance on property came to knowledge after auction - Duty of vendor to remove encumbrance - Whether property sold on 'as is where is' basis - Whether vendor should secure removal of encumbrance

  • For the appellant - Simon Hong; M/s Simon Hong
  • For the respondent - Vijay Kumar Natarajan; M/s Natarajan

CLJ 2021 Volume 9 (Part 2)

The appellant electricity supplier (TNB) may rely on reg. 7 of the Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 to enter a consumer's premises with a view of obtaining a remedy under s. 38 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA') without having to comply with the requirements of ss. 5 and 6 of ESA. Reading reg. 7(a) harmoniously with s. 38 and ss. 5 and 6 dictates that TNB's power under s. 38 to enter a premise to determine whether its meter has been tampered with, being a civil claim jurisdiction, is separate from, not subject to and has nothing to do with the Electricity Commission's criminal enforcement jurisdiction to investigate the commission of offences under ss. 5 and 6 of ESA; hence, no issue of trespass could have arisen from non-compliance of the two sections. This said, the utility of reg. 7 cannot be restricted to the business or operational hours of the consumer. The latitude as granted by reg. 7 for TNB to inspect premises 'at any reasonable time' must be read in the context of 'during the continuance of supply' in the heading of the regulation; since there is always a continuance of supply of electricity even outside the business or operational hours of the consumer, the power to inspect cannot be limited to or stymied by those hours.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2021] 9 CLJ 179 [FC]

UTILITIES: Electricity - Tampering of meter - Claims of loss of revenue - Whether electricity supplier could rely on reg. 7 of Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 ('LSR') to enter consumer's premise to obtain remedy under s. 38(3) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA') without complying with requirements under s. 5 - Whether phrase 'at all reasonable times' in reg. 7 of LSR allows electricity supplier to conduct inspection of meter during operational activity or business hours of consumer - Discovery of metal clamp affixed to meter at consumer's premises - Whether sufficient in law to hold that there was meter tampering for purposes of s. 38(1) and 38(3) of ESA - Whether limitation starts to run from date meter was tampered with or from date meter tampering allegedly discovered - Whether aggravated or exemplary damages must be pleaded

 

 

AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ

(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-34-05-2018(W))
  • For the appellant - Steven Thiru & Hadi Mukhlis; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
  • For the respondent - Jack Yow Pit Pin & Kan Hui Ling; M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-23-03-2020(B))
  • For the appellant - Jack Yow Pit Pin & Kan Hui Ling; M/s Rahmat Lim & Partners
  • For the respondent - Alvin John, Rubachandran Govindasamy & Alvin Sigar Acho; M/s Alvin John & Partners
(Civil Appeal Nos: 02(f)-6-02-2021(J) & 02(f)-8-02-2021(J))
  • For the appellants - P Mithran, Lim Yew Yi & Tan Kai Wen; M/s Kerk & Partners
  • For the respondent - Steven Thiru, Hadi Mukhlis Khairulmaini, Izatunlina Jamaludin & Mohd Amierul Sharafi; M/s Othman Hashim & Co

The deceased purchaser, in this case, having paid the full purchase price for an undivided-titled property, is entitled to the property, notwithstanding that the property, upon its eventual subdivision, has been registered in the name of a subsequent purchaser. What more when she has, after the purchase, occupied the property without any challenge to her right thereto. And what more, when her claim was based on a term of the sale and purchase agreement which has not been performed by the second respondent vendor, which non-performance amounted to a clear breach of contract.
Rokiah Amat v. Pembangunan Tanah Dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 9 CLJ 232 [CA]

|

LAND LAW: Transfer - Sale and purchase of land - Purchase of property from vendor and co-vendors via power of attorney - Property formed part of undivided master title - Purchaser fulfilled obligations under agreement - Property registered in name of first respondent upon subdivision of master title - Vendor director of first respondent - Whether vendor breached sale and purchase agreement - Whether first respondent obliged to fulfil terms of agreement and ensure title issued to purchaser - Whether first respondent held land in trust for purchaser

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Purchase of property from vendor and co-vendors via power of attorney - Property formed part of undivided master title - Purchaser fulfilled obligations under agreement - Property registered in name of first respondent upon subdivision of master title - Vendor director of first respondent - Whether vendor breached sale and purchase agreement - Whether first respondent obliged to fulfil terms of agreement and ensure title issued to purchaser - Whether first respondent held land in trust for purchaser

 

MARY LIM JCA
RHODZARIAH BUJANG JCA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA

  • For the appellant - Mohd Fairuz Abdullah; M/s Mohd Najid & Partners
  • For the 1st respondent - Wong Yen Chnan; M/s Han & Partners & Mohd Hanafi Basri; Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia
  • For the 2nd respondent - Yong How Kiat; M/s HK Yong

Niat bersama melakukan suatu jenayah menghendaki pertemuan minda dan perancangan awal. Perlu dibuktikan bahawa terdapat niat bersama melakukan kesalahan yang dipertuduh dan penglibatan melakukan kesalahan lanjutan niat bersama tersebut. Walau bagaimanapun, adakalanya, kehadiran seorang tertuduh di setiap tempat dan masa material tidak perlu dibuktikan untuk menunjukkan penglibatannya dalam perbuatan jenayah tersebut. Dalam keadaan-keadaan tertentu, inferens tentang penglibatan seseorang tertuduh atau tertuduh-tertuduh boleh dibuat berdasarkan fakta, hal keadaan kes serta perilaku tertuduh atau tertuduh-tertuduh tersebut.
PP lwn. Kunasegaran Ragavanaidu & Satu Lagi Kes [2021] 9 CLJ 266 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Membunuh - Si mati ditemukan mati dalam tong drum - Tertuduh-tertuduh orang-orang terakhir dilihat bersama-sama si mati - Keberadaan tertuduh-tertuduh di tempat-tempat dan pada masa-masa material - Sama ada inti pati-inti pati pertuduhan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada si mati telah mati - Sama ada kematian si mati berakibat daripada kecederaan yang dialami - Sama ada kematian si mati disebabkan oleh perlakuan tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh, dengan perbuatan mereka, berniat bersama, lebih daripada seorang untuk menyebabkan kematian si mati, iaitu tertuduh-tertuduh melakukan perbuatan dengan kesedaran - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai motif membunuh si mati - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama membunuh si mati - Sama ada kes prima facie berjaya dibuktikan terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh-tertuduh membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34, 300 & 302

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 34 - Niat bersama - Si mati ditemukan mati dalam tong drum - Tertuduh-tertuduh orang-orang terakhir dilihat bersama-sama si mati - Penglibatan tertuduh-tertuduh - Keberadaan tertuduh-tertuduh di tempat-tempat dan pada masa-masa material - Sama ada terdapat pakatan antara tertuduh-tertuduh untuk membunuh si mati - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai motif membunuh si mati - Sama ada kes prima facie berjaya dibuktikan terhadap tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh-tertuduh membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34 & 302

 

 

AZMAN ABDULAH H

  • Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Abdul Razak Musa, Saiful Edris, Masri Mohd Daud, Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, Wan Mohammad Fadzlan, Nurfaida Mohd Rashidee, Chan Quin &
                                         Muhammad Izzat Fauzan; Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh pertama - N Sivananthan, Geethan Ram Vincent, Jay Moy, Syazlin Mansor, Jamine Cheong & Tania; T/n Sivananthan
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh kelima, keenam & ketujuh - V Rajehgopal, Ethan & WH Tan; T/n Rama Velu & Assocs
                                                                          - Sheelan Arjunan; T/n Sheelan Arjunan
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh ketiga & keempat - M Manoharan, P Subramaniam & Lily Chua; T/n Manoharan & Co
                                                             - V Rajehgopal; T/n Rama Velu & Assocs
                                                             - Sheelan Arjunan; T/n Sheelan Arjunan
Peguam pemerhati:
  • Bagi pihak keluarga si mati - Simon Sabapathy & Freda Sabapathy; T/n Freda Sabapathy & Co

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. ROBOTS TO THE RESCUE: REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN HEALTHCARE IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
    by Ili Syazwani Shairi** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxvi

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

    ROBOTS TO THE RESCUE:
    REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN HEALTHCARE IN MALAYSIA*


    by
    Ili Syazwani Shairi**

    Introduction

    The application of artificial intelligence ("AI") technology in the healthcare industry has undoubtedly revolutionised clinical practice. There is great optimism that the AI application can provide substantial improvements in all areas of healthcare from automating daily drudgery and routine medical tasks to performing diagnostics and treating functions. The upsurge in the usage of AI and medical robots in healthcare settings has even prompted certain agencies to devise specific rules and guidelines to govern the technology. In April 2021, the European Union ("EU") put forth its "Proposal for a Regulation on a European approach for AI" with the intention of establishing humancentric AI rules and "the first ever legal framework on AI, which addresses the risks of AI and positions Europe to play a leading role globally."[1] Subsequently, in June 2021, in an unprecedented move, the World Health Organization ("WHO") issued six guiding principles to be the basis for AI regulation and governance for its member countries.[2] These developments, together with the eruption of the 21st century global pandemics such as Ebola and COVID-19, indicate that there are strong merits in discussing the ways in which AI-powered healthcare products and services are regulated in Malaysia, which this article seeks to explore.

    . . .

    *Published with the kind permission of Azmi & Associates, Advocates & Solicitor, Kuala Lumpur.

    **Ili Syazwani Shairi is an Associate at Azmi & Associates. Her main practice areas are Corporate and Commercial, with particular focus on technology-related matters. Email: ilisyazwani@azmilaw.com.

  3. ESTATE ADMINISTRATION: WHO CARRIES THE TORCH?* [Read excerpt]
    by SM Shanmugam and Shona Anne Thomas** [2021] 1 LNS(A) cxxvii

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

    ESTATE ADMINISTRATION: WHO CARRIES THE TORCH?*

    by
    SM Shanmugam and Shona Anne Thomas**

    Ask any individual who has experienced death in the family, and he/she will most likely be aware of estate administration. For the uninitiated, this process consists of compiling and managing the assets of the deceased, settling debts of the deceased and distributing the remaining assets to the beneficiaries of the Estate. It is the duty of an Executor (where there is a Will) or Administrator (where there is no Will) to carry out and complete the administration of the deceased's Estate.

    What happens, though, if the Executor or Administrator meets his/her demise? The short answer is that the administration of the Estate must be continued and completed by a new Executor or Administrator. To simplify an otherwise complex topic, practical explanations are set out in a Q&A format below:

    . . .

    *This article is reproduced, with permission by Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Advocates & Solicitors, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.

    **Partner and Associate respectively of the Corporate and Commercial Dispute Practice of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 831 Finance Act 2020 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 -
ACT 830 Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 -
ACT 829 Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) -
ACT 828 National Land Code (Revised 2020) 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 -
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1634 Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 174/2021] ACT 502
ACT A1633 Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; and s 10 (only for new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the Tourism Tax Act 2017 [Act 791]); 1 July 2021 [PU(B) 148/2021] - s 10 (except for the provision of new subsection 20C(3) of the new part VA of the principal Act) and 21 ACT 791
ACT A1632 Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] ACT 807
ACT A1631 Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] ACT 806
ACT A1630 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] ACT 438

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 404/2021 Income Tax (Deduction for Expenses In Relation to The Cost of Detection Test of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) for Employees) Rules 2021 20 October 2021 Year of assessment 2021 ACT 53
PU(A) 403/2021 Constitution of The High Courts (Judicial Commissioner) Order 2021 18 October 2021 1 April 2021 ACT 000
PU(A) 402/2021 Constitution of The High Courts (Judicial Commissioner) Order 2021 15 October 2021 21 May 2021 ACT 000
PU(A) 401/2021 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (City of Kuala Lumpur) Order 2021 15 October 2021 18 October 2021 ACT 333
PU(A) 400/2021 Income Tax (Special Treatment for Bank or Development Financial Institution Which Adopt Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard 9: Financial Instruments) Regulations 2021 14 October 2021 See reg 1(2)(a) and (b) ACT 53

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 509/2021 Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 20 October 2021 1 November 2021 to 30 November 2021 ACT 235
PU(B) 508/2021 Notification Under Subregulation 3(3) for The Purpose of General Election for The Seat of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Malacca 18 October 2019 19 October 2019 PU(A) 185/2003
PU(B) 507/2021 Notification Under Paragraph 3(1)(e) for The Purpose of General Election for The Seat of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Malacca 18 October 2019 19 October 2019 PU(A) 185/2003
PU(B) 506/2021 Notice to Hold A General Election to The Legislative Assembly of The State of Malacca 18 October 2019 19 October 2019 PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 505/2021 Determination of Electoral Roll for The General Election of The Legislative Assembly of The State of Malacca 18 October 2021 19 October 2021 PU(A) 293/2002

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 293/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Pelan Pemulihan Negara) 2021 PU(A) 381/2021 7 Oktober 2021 Peraturan 3, 11A, 12 dan 12A
PU(A) 293/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (National Recovery Plan) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 381/2021 7 October 2021 Regulations 3, 11A, 12 and 12A
AKTA 686 Akta Perdagangan Antarabangsa Mengenai Spesies Terancam 2008 PU(A) 380/2021 6 Oktober 2021 Jadual Kedua
ACT 686 International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 PU(A) 380/2021 6 October 2021 Second Schedule
AKTA 686 Akta Perdagangan Antarabangsa Mengenai Spesies Terancam 2008 PU(A) 379/2021 6 Oktober 2021 Jadual Pertama

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 343/2021 Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan (No. 2) 2021 PU(A) 383/2021 Lihat perenggan 1(2)
PU(A) 343/2021 Ministers of the Federal Government (No. 2) Order 2021 PU(A) 383/2021 See paragraph 1(2) of this Order
PU(B) 101/2015 Notification of Scale of Rates 2015 PU(B) 457/2021 9 September 2021
PU(A) 337/2021 Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan 2021 PU(A) 343/2021 21 Ogos 2021
PU(A) 337/2021 Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2021 PU(A) 343/2021 21 August 2021