Print this page
CLJ Pulse Header
Issue #44/2024
31 October 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

NICHOLAS MAZIVANAN v. PP [2024] 9 CLJ 736
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
MOSES SUSAYAN JC
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: AA-41(ORS)(A)-1-11-2022]
31 JULY 2024

Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('CPC') bestows upon the Public Prosecutor, under art. 145 of the Federal Constitution, the prosecutorial power to discontinue a criminal prosecution at any stage of the trial. However, the court must then decide whether to discharge or acquit the accused, as outlined in s. 254(3) of the CPC. While the Attorney General's ('AG') decision to stop the prosecution influences the trial's course, the court retains the authority to make the final judicial order. The AG's role does not extend to influencing the court's decision on discharging or acquitting the accused, thus fortifying the court's judicial independence.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Public Prosecutor - Powers - Prosecutorial power - Whether prosecutorial discretion of Public Prosecutor absolute - Federal Constitution, art. 145 - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 254

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against decision of Magistrates' Court - Accused charged under s. 354 of Penal Code - Offence of outraging modesty - Magistrate fixed few mention dates for prosecution to wrap up investigation and proceed with trial - Prosecution requested for multiple adjournments and postponements on reason of incomplete investigation - Prosecution did not proceed with trial even though accused had been charged for two years - Magistrate ordered discharge not amounting to acquittal - Whether proper order - Whether prosecution's reason of awaiting further investigation good ground for Magistrate to order discharge not amounting to acquittal - Whether accused ought to be discharged and acquitted - Whether appeal against Magistrate's decision premature - Whether order of discharge amounting to acquittal could be given prior to commencement of trial - Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 173, 254 & 307(1)


JUDICIAL QUOTES

“The task faced by the court in conducting the trial in this case, and in making a determination on the merits, was hampered not only by the manner in which the defence had conducted its case – which had led to the issuance of unless orders – but also by the quality of the submissions advanced, which in my respectful view fell far below the standards expected of counsel. The court struggled to understand the precise nature of many of the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs because the submissions suffered from a chronic lack of organisation, with contentions of breach peppered liberally throughout the written submissions. It was left to the court to impose order and rigour to the points raised in order to properly analyse the contentions of breach. Worse, the manner in which counsel for the defendants presented the rebuttal submissions left the court guessing as to the true nature of the counter-arguments being advanced.” - Per Azizul Azmi Adnan J in A Minor (A Minor Suing Through His Mother And Litigation Representative, CCY) & Ors v. Pengarah Hospital Tuanku Ja'afar, Seremban & Ors [2024] 10 CLJ 22

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2024] CLJU 101

CHUAN LEONG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. TANG YICK CHONG & ANOR

1. In order to determine the actual date of a sale and purchase agreement, the purchaser must provide proof that there was an unqualified acceptance on the part of the vendor of the offer made by the purchaser. It is elementary that without proof of a proper acceptance in law, a contract of sale of property cannot be said to have been concluded.

2. The role of solicitors in a sale and purchase transaction must be thoroughly examined due to the fundamental difference in law between their roles either as the stakeholder for the purchaser or agent for the developer.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Claim for liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') - Late delivery of vacant possession - Date of calculation - Purchaser took position sale and purchase agreement to take effect from date of letter of intent ('LOI') and payment of earnest deposit - Earnest deposit was paid to solicitors instead of developer directly - Whether purchaser knew that developer had yet to obtain housing development licence at time of execution of LOI - Whether purchaser was able to prove through affidavit evidence that earnest deposit was received by developer - Whether role of solicitors in a sale and purchase transaction must be thoroughly examined - Whether there were bona fide triable issues

  • For the appellant - Tan Koon Heo & Lim Eng Siang; M/s E S Lim & Co
  • For the respondents - Ngu Yi Hui; M/s Soo Hoo & Company

[2024] CLJU 157

AMBANK (M) BERHAD v. GLOBALCON HOLDING (M) SDN BHD

A charged property being a subject matter of another suit and the existence of a pending appeal are not causes to the contrary to defeat an application for an order for sale. A pending appeal would not constitute a cause to the contrary under s. 256(3) of the National Land Code 1965. A chargee, being the secured creditor, can enforce its rights in rem to dispose of the charged property upon the chargor's default. In such circumstances, the disposal of the charged property would not adversely affect the chargor's appeal or prejudice the chargor's position.

LAND LAW: Charge - Order for sale - Right of secured creditor - Charged property was encompassed in another High Court suit concerning creditor's scheme of arrangement which is pending appeal at Court of Appeal - No stay of proceedings applied by chargor - Whether application for order for sale was premature and lacked bona fides - Whether there was cause to contrary - Whether application was contrary to some rule of law or equity - Whether chargee being a secured creditor had waived its rights and interest in charged property for benefit of other creditors - Whether chargee has right to exercise its rights in rem to dispose of property - Whether disposal of charged property would adversely affect chargor's appeal - Whether requirements under s. 256 of National Land Code and O. 83 of Rule of Court 2012 had been complied with

  • For the plaintiff - Muhammad Nasim Shafie; M/s Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis
  • For the defendant - Ng Yi Ying; M/s Vilasiny Gan & Co

[2024] CLJU 179

SYBER QUEST AEROSPACE SDN BHD & ANOR v. PESICHEL PHILIPP

An issue raised in defence should be deliberated and considered in detail by the trial judge by analysing the defence claimed based on the totality of evidence. Where the trial judge failed to do so, the appellate court could remit back the case to the trial judge to reconsider that particular issue in the defence.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against decision of Sessions Court - Rejection of defence of money lending - Whether issue of money lending should have been carefully canvassed by Sessions Court - Whether decision was a speaking judgment - Whether Sessions Court should have analysed defence based on totality of evidence pursuant to s. 100A of Moneylenders Act 1951 - Whether issue should be directed for rehearing

  • For the appellant - RS Sodhi; M/s Sodhi Chambers
  • For the respondent - Ramesh Sivakumar & Calvin Lim Sin Guan; M/s Goik, Ramesh & Loo

[2024] CLJU 158

STM TRADING & ENTERPRISE SDN BHD v. SARA HANIS SHAROM

An employee is entitled to payment of salary in lieu of notice of termination if the said employee was terminated following an internal inquiry by the employer which was not conducted fairly and properly.

LABOUR LAW: Appeal - Appeal against decision of labour officer - Employer was ordered to pay salary in lieu of notice - Termination due to alleged theft - Termination following internal inquiry - Employee was not informed right to defend herself - Composition of panel of inquiry consist of employee's superior - Whether there were irregularities in conduct of internal inquiry - Whether there were bias or conflict of interest in respect of composition of internal inquiry panel - Whether internal inquiry was carried out fairly and properly

  • For the appellant - Lalitakumari Thillaidasan; M/s Kadir, Khoo & Aminah
  • For the respondents - Sara Hanis Sharom; In Person

[2024] CLJU 74

PP lwn. MOHD NAZRI WAHAB & SATU LAGI

1. Keterangan ejen provocateur boleh diterima tanpa keterangan sokongan jika keterangan saksi ejen provocateur tersebut adalah kredibel, kompeten serta tiada motif yang memungkinkan saksi tersebut tidak bercakap benar dan tiada alasan untuk meragui saksi.

2. Fakta bahawa kedua-dua tertuduh hadir di tempat kejadian dengan membawa dadah yang dirampas meskipun hanya salah seorang tertuduh berhubung dengan agen provocateur dengan jelas membuktikan elemen jagaan dan kawalan oleh kedua-dua tertuduh.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Niat bersama - Tertuduh-tertuduh ditangkap semasa berurusan dengan agen provocateur untuk pembelian dadah - Sama ada tertuduh-tertuduh mempunyai jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan mengenai dadah - Sama ada perbuatan tertuduh yang melarikan diri semasa serbuan adalah relevan untuk membuktikan kebersalahannya - Sama ada anggapan pengedaran dadah terpakai - Sama ada agen provocateur adalah saksi yang kredibel dan kompeten - Sama ada rantaian keterangan boleh terputus apabila dadah yang dirunding dan dadah yang dirampas adalah berlainan - Sama ada tindakan tertuduh yang melarikan diri menimbulkan inferen kewujudan pengetahuan mengenai keberadaan dadah

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Tertuduh menafikan berjumpa dan berhubung dengan agen provocateur - Sama ada keterangan yang mencukupi telah dikemukakan untuk mengakas anggapan pengedaran dadah - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah menyakinkan

  • Bagi pihak pendakwa raya - Siti Norliza Abdullah; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh pertama - Mohd Fazaly AN Mohd Ghazaiy
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh kedua - Lydiana Mansor; M/s Lydiana Law Chambers

CLJ 2024 Volume 9 (Part 4)

The concept of duty of care is undoubtedly part and parcel of the law of tort of negligence. Pursuant to s. 101 of the Evidence Act 1950, the party who pursues a counterclaim for breach of duty of care, bear the legal burden of proof that its counterclaim is sustainable under the applicable law. It is incumbent upon the court to apply the proper applicable law of tort, so as not to commit a fundamental and material error of law warranting appellate intervention.
Export-Import Bank Of Malaysia Bhd v. Sun Holding (Sun Park Hotel) Co Ltd & Ors [2024] 9 CLJ 495 [CA]

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach - Allegation of - Applicable law of tort of negligence - Whether party who pursued counterclaim for breach of duty of care bear legal burden of proof that its counterclaim was sustainable under applicable law - Double actionability rule - Whether satisfied - Whether financial institution estopped from insisting on strict application of proper applicable law in determining counterclaim

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach - Allegation of - Whether financial institution breached duty of care while exercising power of sale of properties secured pursuant to loan facilities - Whether financial institution has duty of care in law to ensure best possible price obtained whilst disposing land - Whether duty of care negatived by contractual provisions entered into by parties in connection with loan - Whether party who pursued counterclaim for breach of duty of care bear legal burden of proof that its counterclaim was sustainable under applicable law - Double actionability rule - Whether satisfied - Whether financial institution estopped from insisting on strict application of proper applicable law in determining counterclaim

 

 

Hanipah Farikullah JCA
Lim Chong Fong JCA
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA

  • For the appellants - Kamarul Hisham Kamarudin, Cliff Siow Juan Wen & Syuhada Mohd Soberi; The Chambers of Kamarul Hisham & Hasnal Rezua
  • For the respondents - Alvin Tang, Teo Ju Li & Angela Low Yun Hui; M/s Alvin Tang Law Office

Where proceedings in court are indeed contemplated in relation to the administration of trust, s. 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 mandates that a plaintiff who is moving the court must first obtain the written consent of the Attorney General ('AG') to allow scrutiny by the AG to check against abuse and wastage of funds and other resources as public, religious, social or charitable trusts are, by their very nature and intent, set up and intended for a larger community and purpose; serving an entirely different set of beneficiaries identified by some common cause or interest. No exception appears to be made to exclude a trustee from obtaining such written consent.
Lim Boon Lin v. Penang Han Chiang Associated Chinese Schools Association & Ors [2024] 9 CLJ 516 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Trustee of trust land sought directions from court in forms of injunctions and declaratory reliefs for administration of trust - Whether there was breach of express or constructive trust for public, religious, social or charitable purposes - Whether trustee's claims fell within ambit of s. 9 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 - Whether trustee must first obtain written consent of Attorney General - Whether trustee had locus standi to commence proceedings - Whether trustee's claims premature - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Commencement - Charitable trusts - Trustee of trust land sought directions from court in forms of injunctions and declaratory reliefs for administration of trust - Whether there was breach of express or constructive trust for public, religious, social or charitable purposes - Whether trustee's claims fell within ambit of s. 9 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 - Whether trustee must first obtain written consent of Attorney General - Whether trustee had locus standi to commence proceedings - Whether trustee's claims premature

TRUSTS: Trustees - Charitable trusts - Trustee of trust land sought directions from courts in forms of injunctions and declaratory reliefs for administration of trust - Whether there was breach of express or constructive trust for public, religious, social or charitable purposes - Whether trustee's claims fell within ambit of s. 9 of Government Proceedings Act 1956 - Whether trustee must first obtain written consent of Attorney General - Whether trustee had locus standi to commence proceedings - Whether trustee's claims premature

 

Anand Ponnudurai J

  • For the plaintiff - Jeyasingam Balasingam & Kiranjeet Kaur Baldeep Singh; M/s Ghazi & Lim
  • For the 1st to 3rd defendants - Ong Yu Shin, Loh Yeow Khoon, Lim Wooi Ying & Phuah Wen Jian; M/s Wong & Loh
  • For the 4th defendant - David Chen Wooi Teng & Ooi Zie Yiong; M/s Phee, Chen & Ung
  • For the 5th defendant - Christina Siew; M/s Lim Kean Siew & Co

(i) A Government official who is guilty of a constitutional tort shall not be entitled to the immunity against personal liability housed in s. 33(4) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. Such immunity is only available to a personal individual who acted in good faith or purported to act in good faith; (ii) The court may order successful claimants in a case premised on constitutional tort, to first secure satisfaction of the judgment debt in whole or in part from the primary tortfeasor before seeking to secure satisfaction of the balance judgment debt in whole or in part from the other judgment debtors; (iii) It would offend the reasonable man's sense of justice if he has to contribute towards the satisfaction of the judgment obtained against a Government official, ie, a police officer, who had broken the law by beating a member of the public whom he was to protect and who later died due to being denied medical treatment.
Natthanan Yoochomsuk & Anor v. Insp Mohd Noor Husri Johari & Ors [2024] 9 CLJ 546 [HC]

| | | |

TORT: Damages - Claim - Death of detainee in police custody - Detainee arrested by police and beaten up during detention - Detainee brought to Magistrate's Court for remand - Magistrate dismissed remand application and directed that detainee be brought to hospital for medical treatment - Police did not bring detainee to hospital - Detainee re-arrested and continued to be detained without given medical treatment - Detainee died in custody - Members of police force found liable for negligence, assault and battery, breach of statutory duties and false imprisonment - Assessment of damages

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Public officer - Immunity - Constitutional tort - Death of detainee in police custody - Members of police force found liable for negligence, assault and battery, breach of statutory duties and false imprisonment - Primary tortfeasor beat detainee up and denied him medical attention - Whether primary tortfeasor personally liable - Whether immunised from having to individually make payment - Whether public officer acting or purporting to act in good faith - Government Proceedings Act 1956, ss. 3 & 5

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to life - Constitutional tort - Death of detainee in police custody - Federal Constitution, art. 5

DAMAGES: Assessment - Special, general, exemplary and aggravated damages - Detainee arrested by police and beaten up during detention - Detainee brought to Magistrates' Court for remand - Magistrate dismissed remand application and directed that detainee be brought to hospital for medical treatment - Police did not bring detainee to hospital - Detainee re-arrested and continued to be detained without given medical treatment - Detainee died in custody - Members of police force found liable for negligence, assault and battery, breach of statutory duties and false imprisonment - Amount of damages ought to be awarded

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Judgment debt - Satisfaction - Death of detainee in police custody - Members of police force found liable for negligence, assault and battery, breach of statutory duties and false imprisonment - Primary tortfeasor deprived detainee of life by beating him up and denying him prompt medical attention despite Magistrate's order - Satisfaction of judgment in whole or in part by primary tortfeasor before satisfaction of balance judgment debt is secured in whole or in part from other judgment debtors

Su Tiang Joo J

  • For the plaintiffs - Zaid Abd Malek & Khairun Nabila Khairuddin; M/s Daim & Gamany
  • For the defendants - Nur Ezdiani Roleb & Afiq Nazrin Zaharinan; DPPs

Spousal maintenance does not guarantee the continuity of the exact standard of living for a spouse post-separation or divorce. Financial arrangements, assets division, and spousal support may vary widely, resulting in different outcomes in different cases. While the legal system strives to achieve fairness, it could not ensure identical outcomes for every couple divorcing or separating due to the multifaceted nature of individual circumstances. The court's primary responsibility is to ensure that there is no drastic change in the living conditions of the spouse receiving maintenance, particularly if the marriage lasted for a significant duration. Even though the objective is to prevent a significant decline in the spouse's standard of living, the expectation of replicating the exact marital standard is both unrealistic and unsupported by law.
REV v. JEV [2024] 9 CLJ 599 [HC]

FAMILY LAW: Maintenance - Spousal support and maintenance - Petitioner husband filed divorce petition while respondent wife filed cross-petition - Application by wife for ancillary relief for payments - Whether all expenses claimed for necessary - Whether substantiated - Whether husband's refusal to provide any spousal support justified - Reasonable and appropriate sum of maintenance payable by husband to wife - Factors, considerations and objectives considered

FAMILY LAW: Maintenance - Spousal support and maintenance - Petitioner husband filed divorce petition while respondent wife filed cross-petition - Application by wife for ancillary relief for payments - Wife sought order for husband to make full disclosure of all particulars, documents, assets and income and to produce relevant documents - Whether essentially request for discovery of documents - Whether permissible under application for ancillary relief - Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, r. 2

 

 

Evrol Mariette Peters J

  • For the petitioner - Hazman Ahmad; M/s Omar Ismail Hazman & Co
  • For the respondent - Sharon Shakila Gabriel; M/s N Sarawathy Devi

A litigant is entitled to have a prior judgment set aside if it can be shown that the said judgment has been obtained by fraud. There is no necessity to show that the fresh evidence relied upon could not have been obtained without reasonable diligence. When a judgment or order is obtained by fraud, or where further evidence which could not possibly have been adduced at the original hearing is forthcoming, a fresh collateral action will lie to impeach the original judgment. The court has the jurisdiction to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud in a collateral action brought for that purpose. The doctrine of res judicata is not applicable in a separate and original action to impeach and set aside an earlier judgment which has been obtained by deception or under fraudulent circumstances practiced upon the court. Once fraud is proven, it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions.
Yap Yoke Chong v. Yap Chee Siang [2024] 9 CLJ 620 [HC]

|

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Impeachment - Judgment obtained by way of fraud - Court fraudulently misled into granting judgment - Consequence of judgment revoked letters of administration granted to rightful beneficiaries of estate - Discovery of fraudulent materials that were not available at time of trial - Whether due to lack of reasonable diligence - Whether res judicata or estoppel apply in action to impeach judgment for fraud - Whether evidence had determining effect on outcome of impugned judgment - Evidence Act 1950, s. 44

EVIDENCE: Fresh or further evidence - Impeachment - Judgment obtained by way of fraud - Court fraudulently misled into granting judgment - Consequence of judgment revoked letters of administration granted to rightful beneficiaries of estate - Discovery of fraudulent materials that were not available at time of trial - Whether due to lack of reasonable diligence - Whether res judicata or estoppel apply in action to impeach judgment for fraud - Whether evidence had determining effect on outcome of impugned judgment - Whether there was necessity to show that fresh evidence relied upon could not have been obtained without reasonable diligence - Evidence Act 1950, s. 44

 

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J

  • For the plaintiff - T Sudhar, Naren Gill & Ng Yee Lin; M/s Gill & Tang
  • For the defendant - Jason Chan, GK Ganesan & Lee Xin Yi; M/s S Mathews & Assocs
                Glen Kenny Officer Of Amanah Raya Bhd

 


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. CHILD MARRIAGE IN MALAYSIA: AN OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS [Read excerpt]
    by Nadzratun Naim Hammad Azizi[i] Farah Nini Dusuki[ii] [2024] CLJU(A) lxxxix

  2. [2024] CLJU(A) lxxxix
    INTERNATIONAL

    CHILD MARRIAGE IN MALAYSIA:
    AN OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS


    by
    Nadzratun Naim Hammad Azizi[i]
    Farah Nini Dusuki[ii]

    ABSTRACT

    Child marriage has been subject to international human rights regulation since the 1960s. This paper examines child marriage from a human rights perspective, focusing on legal frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CEDAW, ICCPR, and related regional policies. Various strategies have been implemented to address the issue, including public awareness, education programs, and advisory services. Regulatory authorities stress the importance of preventing child marriages and providing support to those affected. This study sheds insight into the effectiveness of international and regional instruments in tackling child marriage and protecting minors.

    . . .

    [i] Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia. Nadzratun is currently a PhD Student at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia. Email: nadzratun@uitm.edu.my.

    [ii] Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia. Email: farahnini@um.edu.my.

  3. 'COLLABORATIVE CONTRACTING AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN THE AGE OF AI'
    LECTURE GIVEN AT THE 2024 SEAH CHOO MENG PUBLIC LECTURE+
    [Read excerpt]
    by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam* [2024] CLJU(A) xc

  4. [2024] CLJU(A) xc
    SINGAPORE

    'COLLABORATIVE CONTRACTING AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN THE AGE OF AI'

    LECTURE GIVEN AT THE 2024 SEAH CHOO MENG PUBLIC LECTURE+


    by
    Justice Philip Jeyaretnam*

    I. Introduction

    1. I am honoured to be invited to deliver this lecture which bears the name of one of the most distinguished doyens of the Singapore construction industry. I congratulate the SUSS School of Science & Technology who are the organisers of the series. At a time of rapid change, annual lectures such as this one offer an opportunity for reflection on how best to address its impact.

    2. My intention today is to spark discussion concerning possible reform and innovation in relation to conflict avoidance, conflict management and dispute resolution procedures for the benefit of the construction industry. Having been a construction lawyer for more than thirty years now, I offer my legal perspective on how construction is organised and managed through contracts, how project communications are managed and how a project is documented.

    . . .

    +Reproduced with permission of the Singapore Courts: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/justice-philip-jeyaretnam--lecture-given-at-the-2024-seah-choo-meng-public-lecture.

    *Supreme Court of Singapore.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
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 - -
ACT 856 Malaysian Aviation Commission (Dissolution) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1730 Licensed Land Surveyors (Amendment) Act 2024 23 October 2024 ACT 458
ACT A1729 Medical (Amendment) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force ACT 50
ACT A1728 Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force ACT 743
ACT A1727 Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force ACT 709
ACT A1726 Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Act 2024 Not Yet In Force ACT 283

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 280/2024 Universities and University Colleges (Constitution of The Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia) (Amendment) Order 2024 2 October 2024 2 October 2024 PU(A) 474/2010
PU(A) 279/2024 Universities and University Colleges (Constitution of The Universiti Malaysia Terengganu) (Amendment) Order 2024 2 October 2024 2 October 2024 PU(A) 466/2010
PU(A) 278/2024 Universities and University Colleges (Constitution of The Universiti Malaysia Pahang) (Amendment) Order 2024 2 October 2024 2 October 2024 PU(A) 464/2010
PU(A) 277/2024 Universities and University Colleges (Constitution of The Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) (Amendment) Order 2024 2 October 2024 2 October 2024 PU(A) 446/2010
PU(A) 276/2024 Universities and University Colleges (Constitution of The Universiti Malaysia Sarawak) (Amendment) Order 2024 2 October 2024 2 October 2024 PU(A) 458/2010

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 432/2024 Declaration Under Section 3 28 October 2024 29 October 2024 ACT 537
PU(B) 431/2024 Appointment of Deputy Public Prosecutor 28 October 2024 Specified in column (2) of the Schedule ACT 592
PU(B) 430/2024 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose 22 October 2024 23 October 2024 ACT 828
PU(B) 429/2024 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose 22 October 2024 23 October 2024 ACT 828
PU(B) 428/2024 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose 22 October 2024 23 October 2024 ACT 828

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 458 Licensed Land Surveyors Act 1958 (Revised 1991) ACT A1730 23 October 2024 Sections 1A, 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19A and Schedule
PU(A) 474/2010 Constitution of the National Defence University of Malaysia PU(A) 280/2024 2 October 2024 Section 57
PU(A) 466/2010 Constitution of the Universiti Malaysia Terengganu PU(A) 279/2024 2 October 2024 Section 57
PU(A) 464/2010 Constitution of the Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al-Sultan Abdullah PU(A) 278/2024 2 October 2024 Section 1 and 57
PU(A) 446/2010 Constitution of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia PU(A) 277/2024 2 October 2024 Section 57

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 324/2004 Peraturan-Peraturan Kawalan Hasil Tembakau 2004 PU(A) 256/2024 1 Oktober 2024
PU(A) 324/2004 Control of Tobacco Product Regulations 2004 PU(A) 256/2024 1 October 2024
PU(A) 121/2024 Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 6) 2024 PU(A) 237/2024 11 September 2024
PU(A) 121/2024 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 6) Order 2024 PU(A) 237/2024 11 September 2024
PU(A) 288/2019 Perintah Mesin Cetak Dan Penerbitan (Kawalan Hasil Penerbitan Tidak Diingini) (No. 3) 2019 PU(A) 213/2024 13 Ogos 2024

Copyright © CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here