CLJ Bulletin #49/2023 (30 November 2023)

Issue #49/2023

30 November 2023

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe today.

New This Week

Case(s) of the Week
1. DATUK SERI POH GEOK SENG & ORS v. PANG SIEW FIAN & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2023] 10 CLJ 513
2. JUDICIAL QUOTES
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2023 Volume 10 (Part 3)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

DATUK SERI POH GEOK SENG & ORS v.
PANG SIEW FIAN & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2023] 10 CLJ 513
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA; CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA; SEE MEE CHUN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: M-01(IM)(NCvC)-547-09-2021, M-01(IM)(NCvC)-553-09-2021 & M-02(IM)(NCvC)-570-10-2021]
09 OCTOBER 2023

The Board of Governors of a school is a creature of statute, namely the Education Act 1996 ('EA'), and can only do those things which it is authorised to do by the EA. The Board of Governors is not a legal entity pursuant to ss. 2 and 53 of the EA and hence, does not have the legal capacity to sue or be sued.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Suit - Legal capacity - Board of Governors of school - Dispute on status of trust properties allegedly held in trust for use and benefit of school - Whether Board of Governors legal entity with legal capacity to sue or be sued - Education Act 1996, ss. 2 & 53

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Education Act 1996 - Sections 2 and 53 - 'Board of Governors' - Whether legal entity with legal capacity to sue or be sued

JUDICIAL QUOTES

“Never was there any evidence that the plaintiff had tried to reverse and ram into the MPV and/or the two policemen. All the time the MPV was behind the Proton Saga and the court could not see what was the perceived threat given their positions throughout the hot pursuit.”

“The conduct of the first and second defendants in pursuing the plaintiff's car and later, opening fire towards the car gave rise to a duty of care to the plaintiff. At the point of time when the rear tyre of the Proton had been punctured after being shot at and it slowed down, there was no longer the necessity to pursue the car. But instead, the evidence was that the first and second defendants continued to shoot at it from the back. The court opined that they may have been overzealous in their attempts to capture the plaintiff and in that process, had used excessive force as can be seen from the number of gunshot traces found in the car. Additionally, the injuries suffered by the plaintiff was not remote, it was a foreseeable damage. Therefore, the court concluded that the strayed bullet(s) fragments were the most probable cause of the residual brain damage at the left parietal lobe of the plaintiff's brain with a small metallic foreign body lodged in the area of the brain. This was attributed to the negligent acts of the first and second defendants after the tyre was punctured and the car had stopped. Pursuant thereto, in line with ss. 5 and 6 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and applicable case laws, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants were also to be held liable vicariously for the acts of the two policemen.” - Per Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin JC in Muhammad Isma Izami Jaafar v. Konstabel Muhamad Zafran Aiman Muhamad Zainol & Ors [2023] 10 CLJ 792

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2023] 1 LNS 107	PRESTASI MAHABAYU SDN BHD v. DATO' ZAINUDDIN ABD RAHMAN Matters concerning societies are governed by the rules or constitution of the society and the society has a legal obligation to act in accordance with the said rules or constitution. The said legal obligation is contractual in nature and governed by private contract law. Hence, a legal challenge against any action or omission in relation to the exercise of function concerning a society can be filed by way of writ or originating summons but not by way of judicial review. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Leave for judicial review - Inappropriate procedure - Action to challenge decision by a society - Preliminary objection - Matters concerning private contact of law - Whether there was public law element in respondent's decision - Whether respondent's decision amenable to judicial review - Whether action could be commenced by way of writ and originating summons - Whether leave for judicial review should be allowed For the applicant - Christopher Yeo & Angie Tan; M/s Christopher Yeo & KP Chang For the Attorney General's Chambers - Liyana Muhammad Fuad; Federal Counsel; Jabatan Peguam Negara
[2023] 1 LNS 163	PONNUSAMY RAJOO v. SUMIVEST HOLDINGS SDN BHD Clear and express timelines set out in a sale and purchase agreement for each instalment payment of purchase price must be adhered to by the purchaser. The purchaser cannot resort to the court's aid to hold onto his definition of completion date as giving him the entire period of time to pay the purchase price in full while ignoring the said express timelines for making each instalment payment amounts to a violation of the plain terms of the agreement and an attempt to rewrite terms of the contract. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Action - Sale and purchase of land - Action by purchaser against vendor for alleged wrongful termination of agreement - Whether plaintiff had disclosed reasonable cause of action - Whether action was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of court process - Whether action was an attempt to rewrite terms of contract CONTRACT: Construction - Intention of parties - Sale and purchase agreement of land - Time for payment of balance purchase - Purchaser intended to pay balance purchase price upon completion date and not by way of instalments as set out in agreement - Whether clear express timelines set out for instalment payment could be violated - Whether purchaser had failed to pay balance purchase price within timeline stipulated in agreement - Whether purchase was entitled to bypass terms of instalment payment For the plaintiff - Edwin Seibel, Gowri Ramanathan; M/s Gibb & Co For the defendant - Kenny Lai Choe Ken, Elaine Foong Sook Yen; M/s Choong Meng Sze & Lai
[2023] 1 LNS 166	WCY PROJECT SOLUTIONS SDN BHD lwn. MENTARI BERSERI SD BHD & SATU LAGI KES Surat-menyurat, draf kontrak, komunikasi melalui aplikasi WhatsApp dan perhubungan emel antara pihak-pihak boleh membentuk satu kontrak pembinaan sekiranya perkhidmatan yang perlu diberikan oleh satu pihak dan bayaran yang perlu dibuat oleh pihak yang lain adalah jelas dinyatakan. Justeru, adjudikator tidak boleh dikatakan telah melampaui bidangkuasanya kerana membuat adjudikasi semata-mata kerana ketiadaan satu perjanjian kontrak yang ditandatangani antara pihak-pihak. UNDANG-UNDANG PEMBINAAN: Adjudikasi - Pengetepian - Bidangkuasa adjudikator - Tuntutan adjudikasi dibuat berdasarkan draf perjanjian, komunikasi WhatsApp, emel dan dokumen - Sama ada terdapat kontrak bertulis antara pihak-pihak - Sama ada adjudikator telah bertindak melampaui bidangkuasanya dalam membuat keputusan - Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012, s. 15 Bagi pihak plaintif untuk kes No. PA-24NCvC-360-05-2021 dan bagi pihak defendan untuk kes No. PA-24C-12-05/2021 - T/n Gibb & Co Bagi pihak defendan untuk kes No. PA-24NCvC-360-05-2021 dan bagi pihak plaintif untuk kes No. PA-24C 12-05/2021 - T/n Palani
[2023] 1 LNS 172	NAGENTHERAN MANOHARAN v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS For a detention under s. 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 to be valid, the allegation of facts must reveal that the detainee was participating in an activity by a substantial body of persons or proven as a member of any groups related to drug trafficking. Failure to name any groups, organisations or syndicates to which the detainee might be part of was not necessary to show that he was a member of a substantial body or persons as required by law. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Habeas corpus - Detention under s. 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Allegation that applicant was acting alone and not with substantial body of persons - Whether there was necessity to name any groups, organisation of syndicates which applicant might be part of - Whether there was delay by investigation officer and inquiry officer to complete their reports - Whether applicant's allegation of not being given right to be informed of his grounds of arrest and be defended by a lawyer was a non-compliance to s. 28A of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether applicant was adequately assisted by Tamil-speaking officers during recording of statements and representation before advisory board - Whether applicant entitled for a writ of habeas corpus For the applicant - M/s Nor Shahid Abd Malik & Associates For the respondent - Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang; Kementerian Dalam Negeri
[2023] 1 LNS 182	AZLINA ANUAR lwn. BAHARUDIN HAMAT Setiap pemilik bersama berhak untuk menggunakan dan menikmati keseluruhan tanah yang dimiliki bersama berdasarkan s. 343(1)(b) Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 ('KTN') dan hak untuk menggunakan dan menikmati harta termasuk tanah dan rumah seperti yang dipertahankan mengikut perkara 5 dan 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Apabila menentukan hak pihak-pihak ke atas sesuatu bahagian tanah semasa pecah bahagian tanah menurut s. 145 KTN, mahkamah perlu menolak sebarang bentuk penindasan dan ketidakadilan. Dalam keadaan di mana permohonan pecah bahagian difailkan selepas puluhan tahun dan selepas tanah melalui beberapa fasa penurunan pemilikan, maka mahkamah perlu memberi pengiktirafan ke atas rentahan yang dilakukan oleh pihak-pihak dan sebolehnya untuk tidak mengganggu status quo rentahan tersebut. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pecah bahagian - Pemilikan bersama - Pemilikan tanah melalui beberapa fasa penurunan pemilikan - Permohonan pecah bahagian difailkan selepas puluhan tahun - Sama ada mahkamah perlu mempertimbangkan cadangan pihak dengan menolak sebarang penindasan dan ketidakadilan - Sama ada mahkamah telah memberi pengiktirafan ke atas rentahan yang telah dilakukan - Sama ada status quo rentahan atas tanah perlu diganggu - Sama ada cadangan plaintif adalah adil dan menjamin hak asasi defendan Bagi pihak plaintif - Nor Erini Mustapha Kamal; T/n Wan Jawahir & Takiyuddi Bagi pihak defendan - Noor Hamiza Ab Hamid, Auni Afifah Mat Rani; T/n Aisyah Abdullah Associates

CLJ 2023 Volume 10 (Part 3)

(i) Article 121 of the Federal Constitution ('FC'), which relates to the existence and exercise of judicial power, is relevant in the determination of civil recovery proceedings in tax matters. Judicial power, however, is not ousted by the recovery proceedings initiated under ss. 103 and 106 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') which comprises Part VIII of the Act and ensures recovery first prior to the full ventilation of the taxpayer's disputes in relation to the assessment of the Director General of Inland Revenue. The determination or adjudication of such disputes are fully provided for in s. 99(1) and sch. 5 of the ITA as well as vide the powers of judicial review enjoyed by the courts; (ii) Section 106(3) of the ITA cannot be viewed as abrogating, suspending or removing judicial powers because the court is only facilitating collection and recovery of taxes under the ITA. It is not exercising its full judicial powers of hearing, adjudication or determination. The sum adjudged to be due under s. 106 is to facilitate the collection and recovery of the sum assessed under the 'pay first, dispute later' system. Section 106(3) is therefore constitutional, and cannot be said to encroach upon judicial power nor is it in contravention of arts. 5(1) and 8 of the FC.
Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v. Government Of Malaysia & Another Appeal [2023] 10 CLJ 329 [HCA]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | REVENUE LAW | CIVIL PROCEDURE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Judicial power - Exercise of judicial power - Collection and recovery of tax - Whether Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') enacted to facilitate expeditious collection of Government revenue - Whether s. 106(3) of ITA usurped judicial power in art. 121 of Federal Constitution ('FC') - True construction of s. 106(3) of ITA - Whether to be construed in vacuo or in context, purpose and object of ITA as whole - Taxpayer's right of appeal - Whether s. 99(1) of ITA provides for right of appeal against assessment by aggrieved person to Special Commissioners of Income Tax - 'pay first, dispute later' system - Whether immediate payment of tax ought not to be deferred - Whether court fulfilled purpose of recovery or collection of tax only - Whether there was abrogation or suspension of court's adjudicating powers - Whether s. 106(3) of ITA contravened arts. 5(1) and 8 of FC - Whether s. 106(3) of ITA constitutional

REVENUE LAW: Tax - Assessment - Collection and recovery of tax - Whether Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') enacted to facilitate expeditious collection of Government revenue - Whether s. 106(3) of ITA usurped judicial power in art. 121 of Federal Constitution ('FC') - True construction of s. 106(3) of ITA - Whether to be construed in vacuo or in context, purpose and object of ITA as whole - Taxpayer's right of appeal - Whether s. 99(1) of ITA provides for right of appeal against assessment by aggrieved person to Special Commissioners of Income Tax - 'pay first, dispute later' system - Whether immediate payment of tax ought not to be deferred - Whether court fulfilled purpose of recovery or collection of tax only - Whether there was abrogation or suspension of court's adjudicating powers - Whether s. 106(3) contravened arts. 5(1) and 8 of FC - Whether s. 106(3) constitutional

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Procedure - Tax recovery - Whether could be subjected under O. 14 of Rules of Court 2012 - Nature of - Whether entire purport and effect of Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') could be thwarted by full trial under O. 14 - Whether use of 'some other reason for trial' could be invoked - Whether O. 14 process could override or supersede statute-created process outlined in ss. 103 and 106 of ITA

ABANG ISKANDAR PCA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH CJ (MALAYA)
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
ABU BAKAR JAIS FCJ

For the appellant - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Rajan Navaratnam, Muhammad Farhan Shafee, Wee Yeong Kang, Wan Mohammad Arfan Wan Othman, Alaistair Brandah Norman, Oazair Tyeb & Mohamed Reza Rahim; M/s Shafee & Co
For the respondent - Hazlina Hussain, Norhisham Ahmad, Al-Hummidallah Idrus, Muhammad Faqrol Syazreen Mohd Ghause, Norazilah N Hamod, Mohamad Asyraf Zakaria, Muhammad Danial Izzat Zulbahari, Azleena Md Khairuddin, Ainur Mardiah Ramli, Qhistina Mohd Apandi, Komathi P Karuppanan & Sakinah Najwa Hussin; FCs
Amicus curiae - Anand Raj, New Sin Yew, Abhilaash Subramaniam, Foong Pui Chi, Preetha Pillai, Vijey R Mohana Krishnan & Choo Kelly; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

A subsequent purchaser, within the context of deferred indefeasibility, is entitled to a qualified protection of deferred indefeasibility. A bona fide purchaser for value is bona fide if he can prove that valuable consideration was paid in view of a bona fide transaction. Even 'equity's darling' could be stripped off its protection if there is evidence of mala fide nature on the transaction. Good faith must be proven in that the subsequent purchaser must prove that he had exercised all due diligence in critically examining the legitimacy of the transaction, not just on the face of the register document of title, but on the documents involved in the transaction itself.
Malayan Banking Bhd v. Mohd Affandi Ahmad & Anor And Another Appeal [2023] 10 CLJ 406 [CA]

LAND LAW

LAND LAW: Transfer - Unlawful transfer - Claim by co-administrators cum beneficiaries of deceased estate - Vendor wrongfully sold same two properties of estate to multiple purchasers - Position of subsequent purchaser in context of deferred indefeasibility - Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser for value - Whether there was proof that purchase price was paid - Whether sale and purchase agreement entered into in bad faith - Whether bank as chargee was subsequent purchaser in context of deferred indefeasibility - Whether bank within category of second layer of subsequent purchaser - Whether bank as chargee derived interest from second purchaser - Whether bank failed to do due diligence to perform simple verification on numerous salient and obvious features of sale and purchase agreement - Whether there was proper evaluation - National Land Code, s. 340(3)

LAND LAW: Sale and purchase - Subsequent purchase - Deferred indefeasibility - Vendor wrongfully sold same two properties of estate to multiple purchasers - Position of subsequent purchaser in context of deferred indefeasibility - Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser for value - Whether there was proof that purchase price was paid - Whether sale and purchase agreement entered into in bad faith - Whether bank as chargee was subsequent purchaser in context of deferred indefeasibility - Whether bank within category of second layer of subsequent purchaser - Whether bank as chargee derived interest from second purchaser - Whether bank failed to do due diligence to perform simple verification on numerous salient and obvious features of sale and purchase agreement - Whether there was proper evaluation - National Land Code, s. 340(3)

RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
AZIMAH OMAR JCA

For the appellant (R6) - Claudia Cheah Pek Yee, Aufa Radzi & Chew Sue Peng; M/s Skrine
For the appellant (R7) - Ummi Salhah Mohamad; M/s Lua & Mansor
For the respondent - Shakir Hussain Khurshed Ibrahim; M/s Kali & Assocs

There is a duty of confidentiality that is owed by the bank towards its customers and this is a basic and fundamental aspect of a banker and customer relationship. The duty is commonly known as the bank's implied contractual duty. Besides a contractual duty, a banking institution is also under a statutory duty of secrecy and confidentiality. Three elements must be established in order to succeed in an action for breach of confidence, namely: (i) the information sought to be protected has the necessary quality of confidence; (ii) the information was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and (iii) there must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.
National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Public Bank Bhd [2023] 10 CLJ 430 [CA]

BANKING

BANKING: Banker and customer - Confidential information of customer - Implied contractual duty - Allegation of breach and wrongful disclosure - Bank's staff leaked confidential information pertaining to customer and disclosed it to third parties - Whether bank had performed or discharged duty of confidentiality with reasonable care and skill - Whether bank had put in place policies and procedures to safeguard confidentiality of its customer's information and transactions - Whether there was breach of confidentiality - Whether information sought to be protected had necessary quality of confidence - Whether information was communicated in circumstances importing obligation of confidence - Whether there was unauthorised use of information to detriment of party communicating it

AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
P RAVINTHRAN JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA

For the plaintiffs - Muhammad Shafee Muhamad Abdullah, Sarah Maalini Abishegam & Noor Farhah Mustaffa; M/s Shafee & Co
For the respondent - Yoong Sin Min, Tiang Min Min & Poh Choo Hoe; M/s Shook Lin & Bok

An auditor shall state in the auditors' report whether the financial statements of the company are properly drawn up so as to give a fair view of matters to be dealt with in the financial statement, in accordance with the Companies Act 2016 and in accordance with the applicable accounting standards. Where the auditor is of the opinion that the financial statements have not been drawn up in accordance with the applicable accounting standards, he is required to state, amongst others, whether in his opinion, if the financial statements had been drawn up in accordance with the approved accounting standards, they would have given a true and fair view of matters required to be dealt with in the financial statements.
Ahmad Zul-qarnain Ibrahim v. WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd & Ors [2023] 10 CLJ 502 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | TORT

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Debt recovery action - Action by claimant against auditor - Allegations of conspiracy - Application by auditor to strike out action - Auditor provided qualified opinions on 'amounts due to directors' in financial statements - Whether auditor intentionally extinguished debt when providing qualified opinions - Whether auditor engaged in conspiracy to defraud claimant - Whether action obviously unsustainable - Whether fit and proper case for striking out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)

TORT: Conspiracy - Conspiracy to defraud - Debt recovery action by claimant against auditor - Auditor provided qualified opinions on 'amounts due to directors' in financial statements - Whether auditor had intentionally extinguished debt when providing qualified opinions - Whether auditor engaged in conspiracy to defraud claimant - Whether tort of conspiracy established

ADLIN ABDUL MAJID J

For the plaintiff - Gideon Tan & Yip Man Fei; M/s Gideon Tan Razali Zaini
For the 2nd defendant - Ben Chan & Sangeetha Vasanth Kumar; M/s Ben Chan

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

DEATH PENALTY IN MALAYSIA: HISTORY AND RECENT DEVELOPMENT ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Dr Chee Hui Bing* [2023] 1 LNS(A) xciv

LEGALITY OF SMART CONTRACTS, LEGAL CHALLENGES AND PROPOSED SOLUTION BASED ON THE CONTRACT THEORY ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Zulhazmi Yusof^[i] Hartini Saripan^[ii] Sheela Jayabala Krishnan@Jayabalan^[iii] [2023] 1 LNS(A) xcv

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 849	The Titular Superior of The Brothers of Saint Gabriel (Incorporation) Act 1957 (Revised-2023)	17 October 2023 2023 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 1 October 2023; First enacted in 1957 as Ordinance No 21 of 1957	-	-
ACT 848	Fees (Department of Broadcasting Malaysia) (Validation) Act 2023	28 July 2023	-	-
ACT 847	Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment For Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of The Federal Court) Act 2023	Not Yet Inforce	-	-
ACT 846	Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023	Not Yet Inforce	-	-
ACT 845	Finance Act 2023	The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 18; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 20; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 22 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 28	-	-

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1696	Printing of Qur'anic Texts (Amendment) Act 2023	1 September 2023 [PU(B) 379/2023]	ACT 326
ACT A1695	Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2023	6 October 2023 [PU(B) 437/2023]	ACT 360
ACT A1694	Malaysia Co-Operative Societies Commission (Amendment) Act 2023	1 October 2023 [PU(B) 362/2023]	ACT 665
ACT A1693	Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023	Not Yet Inforce	ACT 615
ACT A1692	Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2023	Not Yet Inforce	ACT 593

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 363/2023	Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 17) Order 2023	24 November 2023	30 November 2023	PU(A) 401/1989
PU(A) 362/2023	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 24) (Revocation) Order 2023	24 November 2023	30 November 2023	ACT 333
PU(A) 361/2023	Ministers of The Federal Government (Amendment) (No. 4) Order 2023	24 November 2023	3 December 2022	PU(A) 27/2023
PU(A) 360/2023	National Skills Development (Waiver of Fee To Trainee At Pusat Latihan Gurney, Kuala Lumpur) Regulations 2023	23 November 2023	1 July 2022	ACT 652
PU(A) 359/2023	Fisheries (Appointment of Authorized Officer) Order 2023	22 November 2023	23 November 2023	ACT 317

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 531/2023	Appointment of Members of The National Education Advisory Council	29 November 2023	30 November 2023	ACT 550
PU(B) 530/2023	Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12	29 November 2023	1 December 2023 to 14 December 2023	ACT 235
PU(B) 529/2023	Delegation of Powers Under Section 5	29 November 2023	29 November 2023 to 31 December 2023	ACT 358
PU(B) 528/2023	Reservation of Land For Public Purpose	28 November 2023	29 November 2023	ACT 828
PU(B) 527/2023	Reservation of Land For Public Purpose	27 November 2023	28 November 2023	ACT 828

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 668	Akta Pertubuhan Belia Dan Pembangunan Belia 2007	AKTA A1602	1 Januari 2026 [PU(B) 510/2023]	Seksyen 2, 12, 15 dan 20
ACT 668	Youth Societies and Youth Development Act 2007	ACT A1602	1 January 2026 [PU(B) 510/2023]	Sections 2, 12, 15 and 20
AKTA 726	Akta Pihak Berkuasa Pembangunan Tenaga Lestari 2011	AKTA A1690	10 November 2023 [PU(B) 494/2023]	Seksyen 1
ACT 726	Sustainable Energy Development Authority Act 2011	ACT A1690	10 November 2023 [PU(B) 494/2023]	Section 1
AKTA 725	Akta Tenaga Boleh Baharu 2011	AKTA A1689	10 November 2023 [PU(B) 493/2023]	Seksyen 1

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 198/2019	Peraturan-Peraturan Pembangunan Kemahiran Kebangsaan (Penepian Fi Kepada Pusat Bertauliah) 2019	PU(A) 287/2023	1 Oktober 2023
PU(A) 198/2019	National Skills Development (Waiver of Fee to Accredited Centre) Regulations 2019	PU(A) 287/2023	1 October 2023
PU(A) 49/2016	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (First Premium and Annual Premium in Respect of Insurer Members) Order 2016	PU(A) 222/2023	21 July 2023
PU(A) 496/2012	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Differential Premium Systems in Respect of Insurer Members) Regulations 2012	PU(A) 221/2023	21 July 2023
PU(A) 28/2011	Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Annual Premium and First Premium in Respect of Deposit-Taking Members) Order 2011	PU(A) 219/2023	21 July 2023

To unsubscribe click here