CLJ Pulse #51/2024 (19 December 2024)

Issue #51/2024

19 December 2024

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. INSTITUT INTEGRITI MALAYSIA v. ROZIAH HARUN & ANOR [2024] 10 CLJ 894
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2024 Volume 10 (Part 5)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE SPOTLIGHTS

INSTITUT INTEGRITI MALAYSIA v. ROZIAH HARUN & ANOR [2024] 10 CLJ 894
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI JCA
CHOO KAH SING JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(A)-172-04-2023]
30 JULY 2024

(i) The Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving employees of Government agencies. A Government agency, as defined by relevant statutory provisions, is an entity established or controlled by the Government, performing public roles and functions and subject to Governmental oversight; (ii) A jurisdictional objection under s. 52 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, which can be raised through an application under s. 29(fa) of the same Act, is a procedural matter, and the choice of procedure depends on the circumstances of the case.

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction - Jurisdictional objection - Institute incorporated under Companies Act 1965 - Claimant dismissed from employment at Institute due to allegations of serious misconduct - Director General of Industrial Relations ('DGIR') referred claimant's representation to Industrial Court - Whether Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine matter - Whether Institute a Government agency and within ambit of s. 52 of Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('IRA') - Whether jurisdictional objection based on s. 52 may be taken up by way of application to Industrial Court under s. 29(fa) of IRA - Whether Institute ought to have filed judicial review to quash decision of DGIR to refer claimant's representation to Industrial Court

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Appeal - Institute incorporated under Companies Act 1965 - Claimant dismissed from employment at Institute due to allegations of serious misconduct - Director General of Industrial Relations referred claimant's representation to Industrial Court - Industrial Court struck out case due to lack of jurisdiction - Award of Industrial Court quashed by High Court - Whether Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine matter - Whether Institute a Government agency and within ambit of s. 52 of Industrial Relations Act 1967

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Definition - 'Government agency' - Claimant dismissed from employment at Institute due to allegations of serious misconduct - Director General of Industrial Relations referred claimant's representation to Industrial Court - Industrial Court struck out case as Institute a Government agency - Whether Institute a Government agency according to relevant statutory interpretations

APPEAL UPDATES

Heera Singh Mohan Singh v. PP [2024] CLJU 1085 varied the High Court case of PP v. Heera Singh Mohan Singh [2023] CLJU 1625; [2023] 1 LNS 1625
Premalla Navanthapany Samy v. Tetuan Othman Hashim & Co & Anor [2024] CLJU 1181 affirming the High Court case of Premalla Navanthapany Samy v. T/N Othman Hashim & Co (Sebuah Firma) & Anor [2022] CLJU 3034; [2022] 1 LNS 3034

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2024] CLJU 60	BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD v. PERTAMA PERDAGANGAN SDN BHD & ORS In an application for leave to issue a writ of execution to enforce a judgment entered more than six years since the date of the judgment, the procedural requisites as set out in O. 46 r. 2(1), 3(1), 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC 2012') must be complied with. Non-compliance with these requisites could lead to the plaintiff's application being dismissed in limine unless the plaintiff can show to the satisfaction of the court that such non-compliance has not caused any miscarriage of justice nor any occasion of prejudice to the defendants that cannot be cured by O. 1A and O. 2 of the ROC 2012. Continuous attempts for settlement by the defendants and the existence of the movement control order are valid grounds in support of the leave application. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Enforcement - Leave to issue writ of execution of a lapsed order - Delay caused by continuous attempts by defendant to seek settlement and existence of movement control order - Whether plaintiff had slept on its rights - Whether procedural requisites as set out in O. 46 r. 2(1), 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of Rules of Court 2012 had been complied with - Whether there was any prejudice caused to defendants - Whether plaintiff had sufficiently explained its delay in filing leave application and its delay in enforcing judgment - Whether leave application to issue writ of execution was filed well within a reasonable period For the plaintiff - Abdul Rashid Ismail, Azreen Ahmad Rastom & Nur Nadia, Ahmad Jaidi; M/s Rashid Zulkifli For the defendants - Wan Guan Hui & Tsu Jean Yinn; M/s Caitlen Nicholas Cheoh & Partners
[2024] CLJU 98	SEM WAH DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE SDN BHD v. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT ISTIADAT A consent judgment is a contract entered between parties with a force of a judgment. The parties cannot appeal against any consent judgment unless it is set aside. The words of the consent judgment must be given its natural and ordinary meaning if the terms are clear and unambiguous and parties are duty-bound to obey such terms of the consent judgment. Where a party has failed to settle a judgment sum as stated in the consent judgment, that party is estopped from denying the other party from pursuing its right of presenting a winding up petition against the former for its failure. The party in default must show that it has a viable defence in law and produce prima facie proof of the facts in support of its claim in order to succeed in a Fortuna injunction application. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Fortuna injunction - Statutory notice pursuant to ss. 465(1)(e) and 466(1)(a) of Companies Act 2016 was issued for settlement of outstanding rental as agreed in consent judgment - Plaintiff disputing certain obligations of defendant after recording consent judgment - Whether terms of consent judgment must be given its natural and ordinary meaning - Whether plaintiff was estopped from denying defendant from pursuing its right of presenting a winding up petition - Whether there was any viable defence for plaintiff to succeed in challenging winding up petition - Whether debt owing by plaintiff was due to a consent judgment properly recorded and undisputed - Whether plaintiff was able to show petition for winding up has no chance of success - Whether defendant should be denied right to enforce its right as provided under law - Whether there was bona fide dispute to outstanding sum - Whether plaintiff was shown to be insolvent For the applicant - Russell Lua Kok Hiyong; M/s Lua & Mansor For the respondent - Abu Daud Abd Rahim; M/s Azmi & Associates
[2023] CLJU 382	GRANTS VENTURE SDN BHD v. BINWU CAPITAL SDN BHD 1. The limitation to enforce a judicial management order is valid for only 6 months and can be extended for the next 6 months. The 6-month extension is for one extension and there is no limit to the number of applications for extension. The purpose of the 6 months granted and the extension is for the court to assess whether judicial management has performed tasks that justify the extension being granted. Once the period has expired, the parties are back to their original position. 2. A plaintiff is prevented from continuing an action against a defendant who was placed under a judicial management order ('JMO') when the said JMO is in force. Such prevention is not applicable after the expiry of the 6 months and when there was no renewal of the JMO. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Res judicata - Existence of a settlement scheme - Defendant was placed under judicial management in midst of trial - Plaintiff insisted on continuing actions against defendant - Judicial management order expired and no renewal obtained - Whether plaintiff's claim has already been disposed of through a settlement scheme - Whether plaintiff was bound by settlement scheme and estopped from making claims prejudicial to all other creditors - Whether matter could be fixed for trial after time frame of judicial management order had ended - Whether parties can proceed with legal action COMPANY LAW: Business and schemes - Judicial management order - Extension - Purpose judicial management order - Justification for extension - Whether limitation to enforce judicial management order is valid for 6 months only - Whether there is limit for extension of judicial management order For the respondent - Chan Szu Fu; M/s Chan De Vries & Co For the appelant - Lim Ee Theng; M/s Lim Ho Cheong & Lok (Bukit Mertajam)
[2023] CLJU 678	PUSAT KHIDMAT PEMBANGUNAN USAHAWAN YAPEIM SDN BHD lwn. PEH LIAN HWA & YANG LAIN Apabila suatu perjanjian jual beli saham tidak menyatakan bahawa kelulusan dana bagi pembelian saham dari suatu pembiaya secara khusus merupakan syarat-syarat terdahulu perjanjian, maka sebarang pembatalan kelulusan dana tersebut oleh suatu pembiaya tidak menyebabkan perjanjian jual beli saham menjadi terkecewa dan terbatal. Apabila dana telah dibatalkan oleh satu pembiaya, pembeli seharusnya mendapatkan dana daripada sumber atau alternatif lain serta tidak bersandarkan kepada dana dari satu pembiaya sahaja. Kegagalan pembeli untuk membayar baki harga belian saham jualan dalam tempoh masa yang diberikan oleh penjual boleh menyebabkan penjual merampas deposit perjanjian. KONTRAK: Pembentukan - Perjanjian - Perjanjian jual beli saham - Niat pihak-pihak - Syarat terdahulu dinyatakan secara umum - Sama ada niat atau persetujuan pihak-pihak semasa memasuki perjanjian dapat ditentukan berdasarkan surat-menyurat dan komunikasi di antara mereka - Sama ada syarat-syarat terdahulu telah dipersetujui pihak-pihak semasa penyediaan dokumen perjanjian - Sama ada kelulusan dana Kementerian Kewangan telah dijadikan syarat terdahulu perjanjian KONTRAK: Kekecewaan - Perjanjian jual beli saham - Kelulusan dana telah dibatalkan - Remedi - Sama ada syarat-syarat terdahulu perjanjian telah dipenuhi - Sama ada perjanjian jual beli saham telah terkecewa akibat pembatalan kelulusan dana - Sama ada plaintif sewajarnya mendapatkan dana dari sumber yang lain - Sama ada plaintif telah memungkiri perjanjian - Sama ada defendan berhak merampas deposit - Sama ada defendan telah dikayakan secara tidak adil dengan rampasan deposit - Sama ada rampasan deposit adalah sah - Sama ada s. 57(2) Akta Kontrak 1950 terpakai Bagi pihak plaintif - Mohd Wafiy Azman; Abu Daud Abdul Rahim; T/n Azmi & Associates Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Victor Paul Dorai Raj; T/n Burhan & Company
[2023] CLJU 683	PANCA RESMI SDN BHD lwn. ORANG YANG MENGENALI DIRI SEBAGAI & YANG LAIN; PENTADBIR TANAH/DAERAH HULU SELANGOR (PIHAK KETIGA) Pihak yang telah mendirikan rumah, membuat penempatan dan menjalankan aktiviti pertanian, ternakan dan perniagaan di atas suatu hartanah perlu mengemukakan dokumen untuk menunjukkan bahawa suatu kebenaran telah diberikan oleh pemilik hartanah dan bahawa mereka mempunyai suatu rekod ketuanpunyaan atau hak untuk memiliki hartanah tersebut bersamaan dengan pemilikan pemilik tanah. Adalah tidak memadai untuk semua pihak yang menghuni hartanah tersebut hanya mengulangi pendudukan mereka adalah sah tanpa sebarang bukti dokumen. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, A. 89 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 adalah terpakai untuk memberikan milikan terus kepada pemilik tanah tersebut. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pencerobohan - Permohonan untuk milikan kosong - Penempatan tidak sah dengan menjalankan aktiviti pertanian, ternakan dan perniagaan di atas hartanah - Sama ada hartanah dimiliki secara sah oleh plaintif - Sama ada notis pengosongan dan pemindahan telah dikeluarkan oleh plaintif sendiri - Sama ada kediaman defendan berada dalam kawasan hartanah - Sama ada defendan telah mengemukakan dokumen untuk menunjukkan bahawa suatu kebenaran telah diberikan oleh plaintif dan pentadbir tanah - Sama ada plaintif berhak mendapatkan milikan terus melalui permohonan di bawah A. 89 k. 1 Kaedah-Kaedah 2012 - Sama ada ss. 340 dan 341 Kanun Tanah Negara terpakai Bagi pihak plaintif - Bobby Chew Chin Guan; T/n Chris Koh & Chew Bagi pihak defendan-defendan pertama, kedua, keenam, kelapan, kesembilan, kesepuluh, kesebelas dan kedua belas - Azwan Abdul Wahab; T/n Omar Azwan & Partners Bagi pihak ketiga - Khairul Nizam Abu Bakar; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor

CLJ 2024 Volume 10 (Part 5)

(i) While both civil and criminal proceedings may arise from insider trading under the Securities Industry Act 1983, they serve distinct purposes and have different consequences. Civil actions aim to deter insider trading and restore market integrity, while criminal proceedings focus on punishing the offender. The Securities Commission has the authority to initiate civil proceedings arising from insider trading without the Attorney General's consent; (ii) The requirement of 'improper use' of insider information has been relaxed. The mere possession and trading on insider information is sufficient to constitute a violation.
Sreesanthan Eliathamby v. Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia [2024] 10 CLJ 665 [CA]

SECURITIES

SECURITIES: Shares - Insider trading - Lawyer appointed by bank with respect to corporate exercise of privatisation of listed company - Lawyer bought two tranches of shares in listed company - Shares disposed of after public announcement when queried by officials - High Court ordered lawyer to pay three times gains made on disposal of impugned shares plus penalty of RM1 million and disqualification from being director of public-listed company for ten years - Whether consent of Attorney General necessary before commencement of civil proceeding arising from insider trading - Whether lawyer in possession of information not generally available when shares acquired - Whether not generally-available information price-sensitive - Whether on becoming generally available, reasonable person would expect it to have material effect on price of shares - Whether 'improper use' proven - Securities Industry Act 1983

Lee Swee Seng JCA
M Gunalan JCA
Hashim Hamzah JCA

For the appellant - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Gopal Sreenevasan, Mark Lau, Talitha Shim & Ibrahim Au; M/s Sreenevasan Young
For the respondent - SM Shanmugam, CK Lung, Siew Hui Yi, Shoba Venu Gopal, Mageswary Karroppiah & Daniel Ariff Tung; M/s Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

(i) A specific written and signed reference to the account, admission of outstanding debt and proposal to settle constitute an acknowledgment of debt and the accrual of the right of action shall commence from the date of such acknowledgment; (ii) When a party is aggrieved by an order for sale, he must appeal under s. 418 of the National Land Code. A subsequent suit seeking to declare the order for sale complained about null and void is misconceived; (iii) The successful bidder in a public auction is entitled to compensation for the acquired land. Allegations of impropriety require cogent evidence to be substantiated as mere suspicion is insufficient; (iv) A valuer appointed by a chargee bank does not owe a duty of care to the chargor. The chargor may appoint his own valuer if he disagrees with the valuation; (v) The Land Administrator has the discretion to reject an application to postpone an auction, even if the same is submitted within the stipulated time.
Adzhar Mohd Nordin v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors; Landserve Sdn Bhd (Third Party) And Another Case [2024] 10 CLJ 708 [HC]

LIMITATION | LAND LAW

LIMITATION: Action - Right of action - Accrual - Acknowledgment of debt - Land charged as security to overdraft facilities - Borrower defaulted in repayment of facilities - Land foreclosed and ordered to be sold at public auction - Whether proceedings for order for sale time-barred - Letter by debtor to bank contained specific reference to account of borrower, admission that account was outstanding and proposal to settle - Whether letter amounted to unequivocal acknowledgment of debt - Whether right of action accrued on or before date of acknowledgment - Whether requirements of ss. 26(2) and 27 of Limitation Act 1953 fulfilled - Computation of 12-year period - Whether order for sale applied within applicable limitation period

LAND LAW: Foreclosure - Order for sale - Land charged as security to overdraft facilities - Borrower defaulted in repayment of facilities - Bank applied for foreclosure and order for sale of land - Land gazetted for compulsory acquisition prior to public auction - Land foreclosed and ordered to be sold at public auction - Successful bidder awarded compensation - Allegations of impropriety and questionable motives - Whether foreclosure action commenced by bank time-barred - Whether order for sale and public auction null and void in view of land acquisition proceedings - Whether enquiry to determine compensation nullity - National Land Code, ss. 254, 261, 264 & 418 - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 9 - Limitation Act 1953, ss. 26(2) & 27

LAND LAW: Foreclosure - Order for sale - Public auction - Application for postponement of auction rejected by Land Administrator - Discretion of Land Administrator - Whether Land Administrator can reject application - National Land Code, s. 264(1) & (2)

LAND LAW: Malay reservations - Valuation - Valuation report for purpose of foreclosure proceedings - Chargee bank appointed valuer - Method of valuation adopted - Comparison method - Whether status of Malay Reserve Land would be taken into account in valuation for purpose of compulsory acquisition - Whether claim in negligence could be made against valuer in preparation of valuation report - Whether valuation of land credible and in accordance with prevailing market value

Alice Loke Yee Ching J

(Writ Summons No: BA-21NCVC-36-06-2019)

For the plaintiff - Yusman Mohd Badar & Muhammad Nazmi Hanafi; M/s Yusman Azlin Anwar
For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Husna Abdul Halim; FC
For the 3rd defendant - Noerazlim Saidil; SFC
For the 4th defendant - Tengku Nazihah Hanis Abd Nawawi & Joycelyn Keziah Victor George
For the 5th defendant - Wan Roslan Wan Ismail; M/s Roslan, Hazratul, Azman & Hisyam
For the 3rd party - Harvinder Singh; M/s Harvinder Singh & Co

(Writ Summons No: BA-22NCVC-429-10-2019)

For the plaintiff - Yusman Mohd Badar & Muhammad Nazmi Hanafi; M/s Yusman Azlin Anwar
For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Harvinder Singh; M/s Harvinder Singh & Co

(i) An insurer has the right of subrogation, which allows it to step into the shoes of the insured and claim against a third party who caused the loss. This right is not affected by a settlement between the insured and the third party; (ii) A contract of bailment arises when one person (bailor) delivers goods to another (bailee) for a purpose, with the understanding that the goods will be returned or disposed of as agreed. In a bailment relationship, the bailee has a duty of care to ensure that the bailed goods are returned in the same condition as when they were delivered, or in a better condition. This duty extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent damage or loss, even due to accidental causes. If a bailee fails to exercise reasonable care and the bailed goods are damaged or lost, the bailee is liable to the bailor or the insurer who has stepped into the bailor's shoes through subrogation.
Chong Kien Yong v. Tan Chong Ekspres Auto Servis Sdn Bhd [2024] 10 CLJ 737 [HC]

INSURANCE | CONTRACT

INSURANCE: Claim - Subrogation - Car owner/insured sent motorcar for repair at workshop - Fire occurred at workshop and car owner's car declared as total loss - Car owner incurred losses - Car owner claimed under insurance policy and paid by insurer - Car owner compensated by workshop - Insurer commenced action based on subrogation against workshop - Whether subrogation claim valid - Whether car owner had locus standi to commence proceedings - Whether there was right of subrogation to insurer - Whether car owner waived any claims against workshop having entered into settlement and receiving compensation

CONTRACT: Bailment - Bailment contract - Car owner/insured sent motorcar for repair at workshop - Fire occurred at workshop and car owner's car declared as total loss - Car owner incurred losses - Whether there was bailment contract - Whether there was bailor-bailee relationship between parties - Whether workshop owed duty of care as bailee - Whether workshop, as bailee, had dispensed duty of care in taking all reasonable and/or precautionary steps to prevent fire from spreading to premises to salvage vehicles - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 101, 102, 104, 105, 113 & 114

Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC

For the appellant - Rebekah Arputha Malar Nhanam; M/s Suat Lim & Co
For the respondent - Deborah Jaswinder Kaur Sher Singh; M/s Soraya Jabid, Deborah & Co

The approval by a director of an increase in management fees, may be temporary and may not necessarily bind the director to approve future increases without justification. The director may request justification for the fees even if he had previously approved an increase. Further, a delay in challenging the said fees could not be said to be unreasonable if the director has made unrelenting efforts to obtain justification for the fees before turning to litigation as a final resort. When a director makes a request for the documents related to the justification for the management fees, such attempt is not necessarily an attempt to access privileged information, especially if the documents are mere routine commercial records.
Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2024] 10 CLJ 757 [HC]

COMPANY LAW

COMPANY LAW: Derivative action - Leave - Application by director ('applicant') on behalf of company - Dispute on quantum of monthly management fees paid by company to holding company - Whether test for leave to commence derivative action satisfied - Whether applicant acted in good faith - Whether application prima facie in best interest of company for leave to be granted - Whether applicant established honest belief that good causes of action existed with reasonable prospects of success - Whether applicant estopped from going back to agreement to increase management fees - Whether inordinate and unreasonable delay on part of applicant in pursuing action - Whether derivative action abuse of process - Whether would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings - Whether would cause company to adopt contradictory position to one taken in another suit - Companies Act 2016, ss. 347 & 348

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J

For the plaintiff - Lim Chee Wee, Jasper Tan, Wee Hee, Emily Ho & Kuljeet Kaur; M/s Jasper Hee Partnership
For the defendant - Daniel Albert, Ashok K Raman, Shermaljit Singh & Natalie Lim; M/s A K Raman Nair

Information that is considered confidential in a company is protected by law, even if it is not exclusively accessed by a limited number of employees. Employees who have access to such confidential information due to their position and employment contracts have a duty of confidentiality. If they misuse or disclose this information without authorisation, they may be liable for breach of confidence, breach of fidelity, conspiracy to injure and unlawful interference with trade.
Dimerco Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Patricia Lee Siew Mei & Ors; Awot Global Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd (Intervener) [2024] 10 CLJ 791 [HC]

TORT

TORT: Breach of confidence - Disclosure of confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors worked for company for substantial number of years - Tortfeasors each given access to company's confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors resigned from company and joined competitor - Tortfeasors wrongly accessed and downloaded company/ex-employer's confidential information without consent and wrongfully removed and retained them for use at competitor company - Whether allegations of breaches of confidence and fidelity proven

TORT: Conspiracy - Conspiracy to injure - Disclosure of confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors worked for company for substantial number of years - Tortfeasors each given access to company's confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors resigned from company and joined competitor - Tortfeasors wrongly accessed and downloaded company/ex-employer's confidential information without consent and wrongfully removed and retained them for use at competitor company - Whether there was conspiracy to injure company/ex-employer

TORT: Unlawful interference - Unlawful interference with trade - Disclosure of confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors worked for company for substantial number of years - Tortfeasors each given access to company's confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors resigned from company and joined competitor - Tortfeasors wrongly accessed and downloaded company/ex-employer's confidential information without consent and wrongfully removed and retained them for use at competitor company - Whether there was unlawful interference with trade

TORT: Defamation - Counterclaim - Disclosure of confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors worked for company for substantial number of years - Tortfeasors each given access to company's confidential information and trade secrets - Tortfeasors resigned from company and joined competitor - Tortfeasors wrongly accessed and downloaded company/ex-employer's confidential information without consent and wrongfully removed and retained them for use at competitor company - Ex-employer obtained injunctive reliefs against tortfeasors - Counterclaim by tortfeasors against ex-employer - Whether there was underlying intention and ulterior motive of embarrassing and defaming tortfeasors

Azlan Sulaiman JC

For the plaintiff - Chew Kerk Ying & Raymond Tan; M/s Wong & Partners
For the defendants - Mohan Ramakrishnan; M/s Ramakrishnan & Assocs
For the intervener - Vijay Ruben Kannan; M/s Surend Mokhzani & Partners

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

ELECTRONIC MONITORING AND ITS IMPACT ON OFFENDER'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Yurekha Nandagoben* [2024] CLJU(A) civ

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 861	Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 860	Malaysia Border Control and Protection Agency Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 859	Bintulu Port Authority (Dissolution) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	-
ACT 858	Declaration of An Area In The Bintulu District To Be A Federal Port (Repeal) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 857	Jewellers (Licensing) Act 1917 (Revised 2024)	15 October 2024 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 10 October 2024; First enacted in 1917 as Sabah Ordinance No 8 of 1917; First Revision - 1953 (Cap 66 wef 30 June 1953); First Reprint - 1966	-	-

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1739	Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	ACT 447
ACT A1738	Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication (Amendment) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	ACT 746
ACT A1737	Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	ACT 646
ACT A1736	Security Offences (Special Measures) (Amendment) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	ACT 747
ACT A1735	Armed Forces (Amendment) Act 2024	Not Yet In Force	ACT 77

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 387/2024	Windfall Profit Levy (Oil Palm Fruit) (Amendment) Order 2024	16 December 2024	1 January 2025	PU(A) 31/2023
PU(A) 386/2024	Excise Duties (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024	13 December 2024	1 January 2025	PU(A) 163/2022
PU(A) 385/2024	Income Tax (Sports Victory Prize Scheme) (Exemption) Order 2024	13 December 2024	Year of assessment 2024	ACT 53
PU(A) 382/2024	Constitution of The High Courts (Judicial Commissioner) (No. 4) Order 2024	10 December 2024	28 August 2024	ACT 000
PU(A) 381/2024	Constitution of The High Courts (Judicial Commissioner) (No. 3) Order 2024	10 December 2024	25 July 2024	ACT 000

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 501/2024	Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Nirvana Memorial Park (Ijok) Berhad)	11 December 2024	11 December 2024	ACT 778
PU(B) 500/2024	Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and District Superintendent	10 December 2024	Appointment - Specified in column (3) of the First Schedule and Second Schedule; Revocation - Specified in column (4) of the Third Schedule and Fourth Schedule	ACT 16
PU(B) 499/2024	Reservation of Land For Public Purpose	10 December 2024	11 December 2024	ACT 828
PU(B) 498/2024	Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Xiao En Land Berhad)	10 December 2024	11 December 2024	ACT 778
PU(B) 497/2024	Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (Nirvana Memorial Park (Kuantan) Berhad)	9 December 2024	11 December 2024	ACT 778

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 777	Akta Syarikat 2016	AKTA A1701	1 April 2024 [PU(B) 118/2024] kecuali s. 4, 14, 26 dan 28; 30 November 2024 [PU(B) 475/2024] - seksyen 4, 26 dan 28	Seksyen 68, 576 dan 612A
ACT 777	Companies Act 2016	ACT A1701	1 April 2024 [PU(B) 118/2024] except s. 4, 14, 26 and 28; 30 November 2024 [PU(B) 475/2024] - s. 4, 26 and 28	Sections 68, 576 and 612A
AKTA 807	Akta Cukai Perkhidmatan 2018	AKTA A1719	1 Disember 2024 [PU(B) 471/2024]	Seksyen 2
ACT 807	Service Tax Act 2018	ACT A1719	1 December 2024 [PU(B) 471/2024]	Section 2
AKTA 806	Akta Cukai Jualan 2018	AKTA A1718	1 Disember 2024 [PU(B) 470/2024]	Seksyen 2, 49, 49A, 50, 54 dan 57

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 456/2009	Federal Territory of Labuan (Extension and Modification of Licensed Land Surveyors Act) Order 2009	PU(A) 308/2024	23 October 2024
PU(A) 230/2009	Universiti Malaysia Perlis (Discipline of Students) Rules 2009	PU(A) 303/2024	18 October 2024
PU(A) 151/2010	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (North South Expressway) Order 2010	PU(A) 297/2024	21 October 2024
PU(A) 290/2023	Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 26) 2023	PU(A) 296/2024	21 Oktober 2024
PU(A) 290/2023	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 26) Order 2023	PU(A) 296/2024	21 October 2024

To unsubscribe click here