CASE SPOTLIGHTS
PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI PERAK PEJABAT PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN BANGUNAN SERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN JALAN PANGLIMA BUKIT GANTANG WAHAB 30000 IPOH, PERAK v.
WONG SEW LING & ORS [2025] 5 CLJ 846
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH JCA; AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: A-01(NCVC)(A)-102-03-2023]
10 JANUARY 2025
The State Authority, having approved an application for a proposed conversion of the category of land use and sub-division of land, and in the process of re-alienation of the land, may not reduce the tenure of the original title held in perpetuity to a term not exceeding 99 years. To do so would be ultra vires the provision of s. 204E(3) of the National Land Code and against the prohibition under art. 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.
LAND LAW: Title - Surrender of title - Lands originally for terms in perpetuity or freehold - Allegation by subsequent purchasers that status of lands changed to 99 years leasehold - Whether State Authority has power to reduce tenure of lands from freehold to leasehold, having alienated lands to be held in perpetuity - Whether ultra vires s. 204E(3) of National Land Code - Whether within prohibition under art. 13 of Federal Constitution - Whether reduction of tenure null and void
APPEAL UPDATES
-
Ahmad Sukri Ariffin lwn. PP & Other Appeals [2024] CLJU 2693 menolak sebahagian kes Mahkamah Tinggi Ahmad Sukri Bin Ariffin lwn. PP [Rayuan Jenayah No: TA-42JSKS-7-07-2022]
-
Frances Joycelyn Nathan & Ors v. Siva Subramaniam M Shanmugam & Another Appeal [2024] CLJU 2900 overulling the High Court case of Siva Subramaniam M Shanmugam v. Frances Joycelyn Nathan & Ors [2022] CLJU 2676
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2025] CLJU 40
|
ENG HAN PROPERTY SDN BHD v. SALAMON RAJ ADAICKALAM
Where a sale and purchase agreement of a piece of land is terminated following the action of the purchaser's financier withdrawing the letter of undertaking issued, then there is an obligation for the developer to include the purchaser's financier in the developer's action against the purchaser for various reliefs including removal of charge over the land because the developer is not privy to the agreement between the purchaser and his financier. The developer is under no legal obligation to pursue a claim against the purchaser's financier. As a matter of fact, it is for the purchaser to pursue the matter with his financier by way of a third party or an independent action.
CONTRACT: Sale and purchase agreement - Breach - Termination - Declaratory orders - Purchaser's financier withdrew letter of undertaking issued - Title was transferred to purchaser - Developer terminated sale and purchase agreement - Whether sale and purchase agreement has been validly terminated - Whether charge over land should be removed - Whether title of land should be retransferred to original proprietor of land
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Joinder - Action commenced by developer against purchaser - Cause of action arising from breach of sale and purchase agreement - Purchaser's financier withdrew letter of undertaking issued - Whether financier should be named as a party to proceedings - Whether developer has any obligation to pursue matter with purchaser's financier
- For the plaintiff - Bong Xin Wei; M/s Abraham Ooi & Partners
- For the defendant - Kanesrau Appalanaidu; M/s Johnson Arokiasamy & Partners
|
|
[2025] CLJU 43
|
IZZAT HAMZIE HAFIZ SHRKAWI v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS
Article 151(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution only requires a person detained to be informed of the grounds for his detention and the allegations of fact on which the detention order is based. Therefore, a person detained not being provided with his own statements recorded by investigating and inquiry officers is not a ground to challenge the detention order.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for habeas corpus - Allegation of delay by investigating and inquiry officers in submitting complete reports of investigation - Failure to provide applicant with his own recorded statements - Whether investigating and inquiry officers had submitted their respective reports within required time frame - Whether Article 151(1)(a) of Federal Constitution requires applicant to be served with his recorded statements - Whether application for habeas corpus should be allowed
- For the applicant - Puteri Batrisyia Abdul Latif; M/s Jay & Jay
- For the respondent - Nur Syahidah Mohamad Kamil; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam
|
|
[2025] CLJU 53
|
ABU BAKAR JA'AFAR v. PP
The High Court has the power to review criminal proceedings and matters related to criminal procedures that are still or are being initiated in the subordinate courts. An application for revision at the High Court seeking an order for inquest cannot be allowed if there is no record of an ongoing matter or proceedings in relation to the case that took place in any subordinate courts.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Inquest - Inquiry into death - Deceased was found dead with blood and bruises on body - Applicant applied for an inquest and further investigation on cause of death of applicant's son - Application filed in High Court - Whether application was regular - Whether there was ongoing proceeding in subordinate courts - Whether High Court could apply its inherent power to satisfy applicant's application - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 35(1)
- For the applicant - M/s Saibullah M V Nathan & Co
- For the respondent - Chan Lee Lee; DPP
|
|
[2025] CLJU 56
|
LA LEISURE PTY LTD v. SABRECRAFT MARINE SDN BHD & ORS
In the absence of total failure of consideration, the defendant's failure to deliver the vessel to the plaintiff amounts to a breach of contract. It is not justified for the defendant to sell the vessel on the pretext of mitigating loss for any unpaid invoice by the plaintiff before resorting to the remedy available in the contract. The sale of the vessel without notice to the plaintiff is therefore a clear breach of agreement and further constitutes conversion.
CONTRACT: Breach - Damages - Construction of vessel - Failure to deliver vessel - Partial performance - Partially built vessel was later sold - Unpaid invoice - Absence of notice of termination - Whether there was total failure of consideration - Whether defendant was entitled to stop construction of vessel and claim storage charges - Whether there was delay on part of plaintiff - Whether defendant was entitled to sell vessel - Whether defendant had established a valid lien on vessel - Whether sale of vessel was wrong and invalid - Whether defendant had breached contract - Whether plaintiff was entitled to claim for restitution - Whether plaintiff was entitled to recover for wasted expenditure
TORT: Conversion - Damages - Sale of vessel - Sale of vessel without notice - Whether constitute conversion
- For the plaintiff - Louise Azmi & Royce Bong; M/s Skrine
- For the defendant - Mathan Raj; M/s Dinesh Hazira & Partners
|
|
[2025] CLJU 49
|
RATIGA DADAYAN lwn. ELVAKUMAR RADHAKRISHNAN
1. Dalam suatu permohonan untuk meminda perintah berkaitan hak jagaan dan nafkah anak, pemohon perlu menunjukkan kewujudan perubahan material sejak tarikh perintah yang hendak dipinda itu, hinggalah ke tarikh permohonan difailkan. Setelah suatu inkuiri dijalankan dan Mahkamah mendapati terdapat perubahan material, Mahkamah perlu selanjutnya bertanya adakah wajar untuk status quo perubahan material itu dikekalkan tanpa memerlukan pindaan kepada peruntukan-peruntukan berkaitan dalam perintah yang hendak dipinda tersebut.
2. Usia anak yang terlalu muda boleh menyebabkan kesukaran kepada Mahkamah untuk mengetahui kehendak anak tersebut dalam suatu permohonan pindaan perintah penjagaan. Oleh itu, demi kebajikan anak, adalah tidak wajar untuk aturan sedia ada diubah secara mendadak kerana ia boleh menimbulkan kesan negatif kepadanya.
UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Anak - Jagaan - Pindaan perintah berkaitan hak jagaan dan nafkah anak - Permohonan oleh suami - Anak berusia 2 tahun - Anak berada di samping ibunya sejak dilahirkan - Sama ada permohonan perubahan telah memenuhi kehendak-kehendak dalam k. 61 dan k. 63 Kaedah-Kaedah Prosiding Perceraian dan Perkahwinan 1980 - Sama ada wujud perubahan material yang mewajarkan pindaan perintah jagaan dan nafkah anak - Sama ada pindaan diperlukan demi kebaikan dan kebajikan anak
- Bagi pihak pempetisyen isteri/pemohon - Prema Geetha & Preetpiare Kaur; T/n Prema, Bala, Habeeb Rahman & Associates
- Bagi pihak pempetisyen suami/responden - GP Moganathasan; T/n Mogana Thasan & Co
|
CLJ 2025 Volume 5 (Part 5)
(i) The inclusion of a 'reasonable endeavours' clause in a commercial agreement for securing advertisements, particularly in an industry subject to external market forces, provides a pragmatic and commercially sensible benchmark for the obligor's performance. This clause acknowledges the inherent unpredictability of the advertising market and aligns the obligor's obligations with these dynamics, functioning as a 'soft target' reflecting the parties' intentions at the time of the agreement; (ii) The contra proferentum rule is a last resort rule to be applied only when there is genuine ambiguity in the terms of a contract after exhausting other methods of interpretation to ascertain the parties' intentions.
The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd v. Aideah Communication Sdn Bhd [2025] 5 CLJ 661 [FC]
CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Agreement - Revenue sharing publication agreement - Editorial and advertisements in newspapers - Claim for payments for commissions and counterclaim for counter surcharge for shortfall of minimum guaranteed sum - Principles of contra proferentum and reasonable endeavours - Effect of 'reasonable endeavours' clause in contract - Whether can negate consideration obligation in ss. 10(1) and 26 of Contracts Act 1950 - Whether creates uncertainty and ambiguity by dissolving rights, liabilities and obligations of parties in contract - Whether burden of proof to enable reliance on 'reasonable endeavours' clause in contract lies on obligor - Whether generalia specialibus non derogant to be applied when construing specific contractual obligation over general 'reasonable endeavours' clause - Whether contra proferentum rule takes precedence over other modes of construction
Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ
Ab Karim Ab Jalil FCJ
Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh FCJ
- For the appellant - Firoz Hussein, Saritha Devi Kirupalani, Choo Shi Jin, Nur Nabila Roslee & Harel Nieryan; M/s Firoz Julian
- For the respondent - DP Naban, Bahari Yeow Tien Hong & Amina Qistina Mohd Idris; M/s Rosli Dahlan Saravanan & Partnership
In constructive dismissal, the issue is primarily the conduct of the employer and not the conduct of the employee unless waiver, estoppel or acquiescence is in issue. When the employer's conduct signals an intention to dismiss or remove the employee from his employment, breaching the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, such action goes to the root of the contract of employment. This renders the employment relationship untenable, thereby satisfying the 'contract test' for constructive dismissal.
Sudhir AK Kumaren v. Industrial Court Of Malaysia & Anor [2025] 5 CLJ 715 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | LABOUR LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Award of Industrial Court - Employment - Constructive dismissal - Whether there was fundamental breach that went to root of employment contract - Ambiguity of employer's actions - Whether indicated severance of employment - Whether breached implied mutual trust and confidence - Whether there was intention to repudiate employment contract - Whether 'contract test' for constructive dismissal satisfied - Whether employer's conduct tantamount to constructive dismissal
LABOUR LAW: Employment - Dismissal - Constructive dismissal - Whether there was fundamental breach that went to root of employment contract - Ambiguity of employer's actions - Whether indicated severance of employment - Whether breached implied mutual trust and confidence - Whether there was intention to repudiate employment contract - Whether 'contract test' for constructive dismissal satisfied - Whether employer's conduct tantamount to constructive dismissal
Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JCA
Azmi Ariffin JCA
Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA
- For the appellant - Ian Cham Chi Onn; M/s Ronny Cham & Co
- For the 1st respondent - Absent
- For the 2nd respondent - Sukumaran Vanugopal; M/s S Vanugopal & Partners
(i) Penyampaian notis bawah Kanun Tanah Negara ('KTN') mesti dilakukan pada pemilik hartanah yang sah. Penyampaian pada entiti yang berbeza, walaupun mempunyai nama yang serupa, adalah tidak sah. Jika penyampaian melalui pos berdaftar gagal, penyampaian ganti mesti dilakukan mengikut tatacara yang digariskan bawah s. 432 KTN; (ii) Pematuhan ss. 97, 100 dan 130 KTN adalah wajib. Kegagalan menyampaikan notis 6A pada pemilik yang sah menyebabkan segala tindakan pelucuthakkan tidak teratur di sisi undang-undang.
Hsin Ngie Industry Sdn Bhd lwn. Pentabdir Tanah Daerah Pontian [2025] 5 CLJ 749 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pelucuthakan - Kesahan - Notis - Pemilik tanah menjelaskan bayaran penuh cukai tanah tertunggak dan denda lewat - Pemilik hartanah mendapati butiran tercatat pada hartanah bahawa notis cukai tidak dibayar dan notis perampasan tanah - Sama ada pemilik ada menerima apa-apa notis daripada Pentadbir Tanah - Sama ada notis-notis yang dikeluarkan sah - Sama ada penyampaian notis-notis teratur dan sah - Sama ada tindakan pelucuthakan hartanah teratur - Kanun Tanah Negara, ss. 97, 100, 130, 432 & 433
- Bagi pihak plaintif - Yahya Chuah; T/n Lau Kok Guan, Liana, & Kuan
- Bagi pihak defendan - Mohamad Zulfadhli Tuah; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan
Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 affords protection to the minority shareholder in response to the rule of the majority in the conduct of the affairs of the company, according to Foss v. Harbottle. The remedy under s. 346 is not available to majority shareholders in control. In this case, the plaintiffs, who are the majority in control, has no locus standi to start a s. 346 action at all, especially when they have already commenced another suit for the remedy they seek. Section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, read together with item 11 of the Schedule to the Act, expressly recognises that a multiplicity of proceedings is regarded as an abuse of process.
Ng Chik Voon & Ors v. Stronghold Cycles Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 5 CLJ 761 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE | COMPANY LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Oppression claim filed under s. 346 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether remedy available to plaintiffs as majority shareholders in control - Whether proper plaintiff rule applied - Whether plaintiffs had locus standi - Whether plaintiffs already pleaded and prayed for damages in another suit - Whether multiplicity of proceedings - Whether abuse of process - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 25(2)
COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Acts and conducts amounting to oppression - Oppression claim filed under s. 346 of Companies Act 2016 - Whether remedy available to plaintiffs as majority shareholders in control - Whether proper plaintiff rule applied - Whether plaintiffs had locus standi - Whether plaintiffs already pleaded and prayed for damages in another suit - Whether multiplicity of proceedings - Whether abuse of process - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 25(2)
- For the plaintif - Nicholas Navaraon & Jane Chan; M/s Izral Partnership
- For the 1st-10th defendants - Ganesan Nithi & Alicia Gomez, M/s Tommy Thomas
- For the 11th defendant - Peter Douglas & Manpreet Sandhu; M/s Peter Ling & Co
(i) The principle enunciated in the case of Lee Tak Suan & Anor v. Tunku Dato Seri Shahabudin & Ors, upon its registration under a statute (the Societies Act 1966), gains legal recognition of its existence; thus it is a legal entity; (ii) It is undisputed that s. 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 provides that a society can be sued in the name of its office bearer.
Ragavan Rajoo v. Ignatian Benedict Duraisingham [2025] 5 CLJ 779 [HC]
TORT | UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
TORT: Defamation - Claim - Question of law - Whether unincorporated association immune or barred from suing and being sued in name of its office bearers - Whether society legal entity - Lim Lip Eng v. Ong Ka Chuan - Lee Tak Suan & Anor v. Tunku Dato Seri Shahabudin & Ors - Societies Act 1966, s. 9(c) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A, O. 33 r. 5
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS: Societies - Suits - Defamation suit - Question of law - Whether unincorporated association immune or barred from suing and being sued in name of its office bearers - Whether society legal entity - Lim Lip Eng v. Ong Ka Chuan - Lee Tak Suan & Anor v. Tunku Dato Seri Shahabudin & Ors - Societies Act 1966, s. 9(c) - Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A, O. 33 r. 5
- For the plaintiff - Shangeetha Thana Sehgaran; M/s S Thilaga
- For the defendant - Ashok Kandiah & Mishand Pathmanathan; M/s Haris Ibrahim Kandiah Partnership
The discretion given to a Public Prosecutor ('PP') under s. 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 is not unfettered. Once it is shown that the PP, in the exercise of his power, had acted in bad faith or had been influenced by an ulterior motive, predilection or prejudice, the decision of the PP may be impugned. In this regard, the onus lies on the applicant to show that the PP's acts were tainted with mala fide or bad faith. Mere suspicion is insufficient.
Rosli Dahlan v. Datuk Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh & Ors [2025] 5 CLJ 794 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for leave - Challenge against issuance of seizure order under s. 50 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether wrongful seizure - Whether actions tainted with mala fide - Whether application pending completion of investigation premature - Whether investigative process of enforcement agency amenable to judicial review
- For the applicant - DP Naban, Harvinderjit Singh Manjit Singh, Harvinder Singh Sidhu, Amiratu Al Amirat Saleh Garbaa & Elani Mazlan; M/s Vin Law Co
- For the respondents - Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahim; SFC & Nur Syazwani Abdul Aziz; FC
A contract may not be terminated for failure to perform what is legally impossible, especially when that impossibility is known by the terminating party. For example, if the termination of the contract is caused by a party's failure to obtain an approval of a local authority which is impossible to be obtained due to contravention with any legislation, and this is known by the terminating party, such termination would be held unlawful.
Sky Blue Media Sdn Bhd v. Goh Sin Teck [2025] 5 CLJ 809 [HC]
CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Termination - Wrongful termination - Parties entered into billboard advertising agreement for erection of 60' x 60' LED billboard - Billboard with size of 60' x 40' erected, causing property owner to terminate agreement - Whether termination of agreement lawful - Whether erection of 60' x 60' billboard legally possible - Whether known by property owner - Whether property owner waived all rights to insist on 60' x 60' billboard - Whether the erection of 60' x 60' billboard approved by local authority - Whether there was misrepresentation at time of contracting - Whether there was specific timeline for completion of billboard erection in agreement - Whether force majeure clause of agreement applicable
Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin J
- For the plaintiff - Harjinder Singh, Nirumala Pusudoray & Vimel Kaur; M/s Aziz Doray & Assoc
- For the defendant - Loi Kwong Fon & Yap Boon Han; M/s Loi & Co
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
-
AMENDMENT OF THE LAW TO THE EVIDENCE OF A CHILD WITNESS: AN ANALYSIS
[Read excerpt]
by Habibah Omar* [2025] CLJU(A) liii
[2025] CLJU(A) liii
MALAYSIA
AMENDMENT OF THE LAW TO THE EVIDENCE OF A CHILD WITNESS: AN ANALYSIS
by
Habibah Omar*
INTRODUCTION
Child evidence has always been viewed with scepticism. The recent amendment to the law regarding child evidence in Malaysia aims to empower children by acknowledging their competency to testify and giving greater weight to their testimony in court.
The Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 ('ECWA 2007') (Act 676) was recently amended and became effective on 3 March 2025.[1] This Act has become the principal Act governing child evidence in Malaysia. The amendment to the EWCA 2007 has resulted in simultaneous amendments to the Evidence Act 1950 ('EA 1950') (Act 56) and the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 ('SOACA 2017') (Act 792), which concern the involvement of children as witnesses. This paper aims to analyse the effect of the change in the law on a child's evidence, particularly on the issues of child competency and the requirement of corroboration.
. . .
-
A NOTE TO OURSELVES: ENHANCING THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS IN MALAYSIA
[Read excerpt]
by Teoh Shu Yee* [2025] CLJU(A) liv
[2025] CLJU(A) liv
MALAYSIA
A NOTE TO OURSELVES: ENHANCING THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS IN MALAYSIA
by
Teoh Shu Yee*
INTRODUCTION
A recent topic that has drawn significant national attention is the speech delivered in Malta by the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat (the Chief Justice), who was invited to speak on the subject of judicial independence and parliamentary sovereignty.[1] The Chief Justice rightly highlighted the pressing issue of amending current laws to ensure that judicial appointments are insulated from political control, particularly from the Prime Minister in this country. The main concern is that the Judiciary is the most important institution in the country, responsible for ensuring that the executive, Parliament, or any other party does not exceed legal limits, since only the Judiciary has the authority to decide issues and ensure the rule of law is upheld.[2] It serves as an important note to ourselves to pay close attention to the independence of the Judiciary as this reflects the health of the judicial system.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
| Number |
Title |
In force from |
Repealed |
Superseded |
| ACT 867 |
Government Service Efficiency Commitment Act 2025 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 866 |
Online Safety Act 2025 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 864 |
Data Sharing Act 2025 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 863 |
Measures For The Collection, Administration and Enforcement of Tax Act 2024 |
The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 10; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 20; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 43; the Windfall Profit Levy Act 1998 [Act 592] see s 46; the Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 48; and the Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 52 |
- |
- |
| ACT 862 |
Finance Act 2024 |
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 23 the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 28 the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 30 and the Finance (No 2) Act 2023 [Act 851] see s 32 |
- |
- |
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| AKTA 505 |
Akta Pentadbiran Undang-Undang Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1993 |
AKTA A1592 |
1 Jun 2025 [PU(B) 211/2025] |
Seksyen 7, 97 dan 99 |
| ACT 505 |
Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 |
ACT A1592 |
1 June 2025 [PU(B) 211/2025] |
Sections 7, 97 and 99 |
| ACT 371 |
Registration of Pharmacists Act 1951 (Revised 1989) |
PU(A) 116/2025 |
15 April 2025 |
First Schedule |
| AKTA 342 |
Akta Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit 1988 |
AKTA A1742 |
1 Mei 2025 [PU(B) 169/2025] |
Seksyen 2, 10, 14A, 15A, 21A, 21B, 21C, 22A, 23, 24, 24A, 25, 26 dan 31 |
| ACT 342 |
Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 |
ACT A1742 |
1 May 2025 [PU(B) 169/2025] |
Sections 2, 10, 14A, 15A, 21A, 21B, 21C, 22A, 23, 24, 24A, 25, 26 and 31 |
Revoked
|
