Print this page
CLJ Pulse Header
Issue #21/2024
23 May 2024

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

New This Week


[2024] 5 CLJ 193
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 02(f)-77-08-2022(W), 02(f)-80-08-2022(W), 02(f)-81-08-2022(W) & 02(f)-82-08-2022(W)]
26 MARCH 2024

The balance between the pursuit of lawful entrepreneurial goals by management, by raising capital through the issuance of new shares, as against the pre-emptive rights of shareholders, is a legitimate concern in company law. The shareholders' fear of shares dilution and voting power, is to be weighed against the need to restructure and pursue growth in the interests of the company as a whole. Hence, in ensuring that a balance is struck between the competing interests of shareholders and directors in pursuing their business goals, s. 75(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016 ('Act') prohibits the management of a company from exercising any power to allot shares in the company without the prior approval of the company in a general meeting. Section 85 of the Act further safeguards shareholders' rights by providing pre-emption rights in relation to the issuance of new shares. These rights, however, are subject to the constitution of the company. In this respect, the content of the company's constitution is given recognition and acknowledgment, and it prevails over the statutory rights under s. 85(1) of the Act.

COMPANY LAW: Mergers and take overs - Underlying principles - Proposed allotment and issuance of new shares - Powers of directors in issuance of shares - Exemptions where issuance is part consideration for acquisition of asset - Pre-emptive rights - Whether statutorily provided - Whether subject to constitution of company - Whether constitution of company prevails over pre-emptive rights under statute - 'Subject to direction to the contrary by the company at general meeting' - Whether required prior approval at general meeting - Whether shareholders given sufficient notice - Whether approval obtained - Whether share buy-back transactions undertaken in good faith and in interest of company - Companies Act 2016, ss. 75(1), (2) , 85(1) , 223(1)(b)(i) & (ii)

COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Minority shareholders - Proposed allotment and issuance of new shares - Whether shareholders aware of pre-emptive rights - Whether share buy-back transactions undertaken in good faith and in interest of company - Whether undertaking of transaction without authorisation in company's articles of association amounted to illegality per se - Whether illegality could form basis for complaint of oppression - Whether minority shareholders suffered unfair prejudice - Whether non-compliance with s. 127 of Companies Act 2016 established - Whether oppression made out

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statute - Interpretation - Companies Act 2016, s. 223(1)(b)(i) & (ii) - Whether both limbs to be read disjunctively - Whether 'or' means 'alternatively', and cannot be construed to mean 'and' - Whether sufficient for either s. 223(1)(b)(i) or (b)(ii) to be adhered to - Purpose - Whether to ensure shareholders aware of and approve any proposed corporate transaction that will materially affect company

WORDS AND PHRASES: 'subject to direction to the contrary by the company at general meeting' - Whether 'subject to direction' means subject to instruction or order or stipulation - Whether directors bound to ascertain and obtain approval of shareholders at general meeting for proposed issuance of shares - Companies Act 2016, s. 85(1)

[2024] 5 CLJ 283
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: K-01(NCVC)(A)-614-08-2022, K-01(NCVC)(A)-615-08-2022, K-01(NCVC)(A)-623-08-2022 & K-01(NCVC)(A)-624-08-2022]
22 MARCH 2024

The forced acquisition of property is an incursion into fundamental liberties and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Act 1960 must be construed strictly to resolve ambiguities. However, it is not open for the court to disapply the provisions of written law where the meaning of the provision in question is clear and unambiguous. Section 47(2)(d) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 requires that any decision, relating to an award of compensation in an acquisition of land, must be appended with the reasons for the award of compensation. The decision must be in writing and signed by the judge and the assessors as provided in s. 47(1). These requirements must be strictly adhered to.

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compulsory acquisition - Award of compensation - Whether reasons for award of compensation must be given - Whether reasons must be in writing - Whether decision must be signed by judge and assessors - Whether absence of assessors' signature contravened requirements under s. 47(1) of Land Acquisition Act 1960

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Memorandum of appeal - Compulsory acquisition of land - Objection to compensation - Appeal by Land Administrator ('LA') - Whether memorandum of appeal by LA bereft of details - Whether failed to raise real question of law - Whether notices in substantial compliance with Form 1 in First Schedule to Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 - Whether there can be no question of law in appeal from decision of land reference court - Whether premature to pronounce on adequacy or otherwise of questions of law posed - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 36(4), 37(1) & 49(1)


  1. Ketua Pengarah Kastam & Anor v. Wintercorn Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2024] CLJU 542 overulling the High Court case of Wintercorn Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Kastam & Anor [2022] CLJU 2153; [2022] 1 LNS 2153

  2. Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Anor [2024] CLJU 538 overulling the High Court case of Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [Rujukan Tanah No: 15-99-09/2012]


Legal Network Series

[2024] CLJU 45


A proprietor of strata title is not eligible to have its representative elected as a member of the joint management body ('JMB') or entitled to vote at the general meeting of the JMB if it has arrears of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions. Where the representatives had been so elected as members of JMB despite having such arrears, then parcel owners have the right to commence an action against the JMB and the said proprietor who had been voted and elected as a member of the JMB challenging the status of the said proprietor and the resolutions passed at the general meeting.

LAND LAW: Strata title - Joint management body ('JMB') - General meetings - Voting - Representatives of car park owner voted and elected as a member of JMB despite having arrears of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions - Action by parcel owner against JMB and member of Joint Management Committee ('JMC') - Whether car park owner was entitled to vote in general meetings of JMB - Whether parcel owners have locus standi to commence action against JMB and car park owners - Whether resolutions passed at JMC's meeting was legal and valid

  • For the plaintiff - Raymond Mah, John Chan & Jasmine Wee; Ms Mah Weng Kwai & Associates
  • For the defendants - Aundre Kok Onn & Alysha Onn; Ms Onn & Partners

[2024] CLJU 52


Under O. 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, a statement and affidavit verifying the facts form part of the pleading of any judicial review application and must therefore be complied with. Failure to file an affidavit verifying facts is therefore a blatant disregard of the mandatory requirements and is fatal. Allegations of honest mistake and genuine error are insufficient grounds to excuse failure to file and an extension of time to file the said file affidavit verifying facts. As such, any order granting leave to commence judicial review in the absence of such affidavit verifying facts should be set aside.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Proceedings - Extension of time to file affidavit verifying facts in support of judicial review - Failure to file affidavit verifying facts into electronic filing system ('EFS') - Affidavit verifying facts not served on respondent - Extension of time - Application filed after ex parte order for leave to commence judicial review obtained - Whether contents of O. 53 statement supported by affidavit verifying facts - Whether failure to file affidavit was a mandatory breach of O. 53 r. 4 of Rules of Court 2012 - Whether applicant failed to fully and frankly disclose all material facts to Court - Whether honest mistake and genuine error was sufficient excuse - Whether order for leave should be set aside

  • For the applicant - Pathma Raj Ramasamy & R M Murali; M/s Pathma Raj Ramasamy & Co
  • For the 1st respondent - Mohammad Haikal Adnin Mohd Naim & Nur Irdina Syahirah; M/s Ahmad Deniel Ruben & Co

[2024] CLJU 56


In cases where a person's religious status, whether she or he is a Muslim or not, is in dispute, the civil court has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the said issue. In the circumstances where the person claims to be a non-Muslim from the beginning, then the question of law which requires determination of whether that person is a Muslim is for the civil court to hear and decide.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Jurisdiction - Civil court - Determination of religious faith - Order seeking declaration of a person's religious status - Ab initio case - Plaintiffs maintained that their religion has always been Hindu – Plaintiffs’ biological mother's linage being Muslim and Hindu - Illegitimate child - Whether matter involve renunciation from religion of Islam therefore invoking jurisdiction of Syariah Court - Whether civil court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine issue concerning a person's religious status - Whether action should be commenced by way of originating summons or by way of judicial review application

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Freedom of religion - Determination of religious faith of children - Illegitimate child - Whether plaintiff could be ascribed paternity of their father

  • For the plaintiffs - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Abraham Au & Lim Sze Han; M/s Yeoh Mazlina & Partners
  • For the first defendant - Mohammad Sallehuddin Md Ali
  • For the second defendant - Kamaruzaman Muhammad Arif & Muhammad Izzat Dzulkafli; M/s Kamaruzaman Arif & Sofiah

[2023] CLJU 303


Setelah suatu kes jenayah dimulakan atas satu pertuduhan jenayah dan kes jenayah tersebut masih belum selesai, maka pengadu tidak boleh memulakan satu tuntutan sivil berasaskan fakta yang sama. Tindakan sivil yang dimulakan sebelum pelupusan kes jenayah adalah pra-matang dan menyebabkan serangan secara kolateral terhadap kes jenayah. Justeru, ia merupakan satu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah dan tidak boleh dipertahankan.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Tuntutan sivil berasaskan tort serangan dan serang-sentuh terhadap pengasuh dan pusat asuhan - Kewujudan kes jenayah terhadap pengasuh yang masih belum selesai - Sama ada tuntutan plaintif adalah bona fide - Sama ada perjalanan tuntutan sivil secara serentak akan menyebabkan serangan kolateral terhadap kes jenayah - Sama ada kes sivil boleh mendahului kes jenayah - Sama ada plaintif telah membuktikan kewujudan kausa tindakan yang munasabah - Sama ada tindakan yang pra-matang wajar dibatalkan - Sama ada tindakan sivil adalah penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah

  • Bagi pihak perayu/plaintif - T/n Sam Masri & Associates
  • Bagi pihak responden-responden/defendan-defendan - T/n Fauzi Ngah & Neasa

[2023] CLJU 306


Apabila keterangan dan penjelasan pihak-pihak mengenai perjanjian-perjanjian yang dirujuk, perlanggaran obligasi pihak-pihak, tuntutan amaun tertunggak, tuntutan balas dan isu bersampingan lain telah dibentangkan dalam afidavit dan dokumen yang diekshibitkan dalam suatu permohonan pembatalan tindakan, maka tindakan tersebut boleh diputuskan secara muktamad tanpa melalui perbicaraan penuh.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Perlanggaran perjanjian pengeluaran dan pembekalan barangan - Kewujudan tuntutan balas - Sama ada tuntutan plaintif mewujudkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah - Sama ada tuntutan plaintif boleh dipertahankan - Sama ada isu-isu yang dibangkitkan perlu dibicarakan - Sama ada keterangan afidavit dan dokumen cukup untuk menentukan tindakan plaintif

  • Bagi plaintif perayu - Zorah Jan Mohd Newaz; T/n Z.J. Newaz & Co
  • Bagi defendan responden - Cheah Kha Mun; T/n Wong Kian Kheong

CLJ 2024 Volume 5 (Part 1)

Schools of any arrangement are for learning and schooling years are important formative years where personalities are formed and traits are enhanced. It is reasonable and fair to expect that these places of learning are safe and conducive. In the case of residential schools, the responsibility would obviously be even wider and more extensive. Whilst within their premises and the compound of the premises of the school, those who are responsible for the running and managing of a school are responsible for the students' safety, welfare and well-being.
Ahmad Ikhwan Ahmad Fauzi v. Mohd Fahimi Endut (Father And Next Of Kin Of Ahmad Safwan Hanim Mohd Fahimi (Deceased)) & Ors And Another Appeal [2024] 5 CLJ 1 [FC]

TORT: Assault and battery - Claim - School bullying - Action against students, school authorities and Government of Malaysia - Student/claimant assaulted by other students - Claimant sustained injuries on face and body and lost hearing in right ear - Whether assault and battery established - Whether claims supported by evidence

TORT: Liability - Vicarious liability - School bullying - Action against students, school authorities and Government of Malaysia - Student/claimant assaulted by other students - Claimant sustained injuries on face and body and lost hearing in right ear - Whether school authorities and Government of Malaysia vicariously liable for assault and battery committed by students - Whether assault and battery reasonably foreseeable




  • For the appellant - Hisyam Yusof, Wan Azliana Wan Adnan, Nik Nur Syazwani Nik Suhaimi & Diyana Ibrahim; M/s Wan Adnan & Partners
  • For the 1st respondent - Azrulrizal Ibrahim; M/s Azman, Wan Helmi & Assocs
  • For the 2nd to 5th respondents - Nik Mohd Radhia Nik Abdul Ghani, Wan Ahmad Faiz Wan Abdullah, Wan Solehah Wan Mohamad & Mat Zaidan Ali; M/s WM Haidi & Assocs
  • For the 6th to 9th respondents - Andi Razalijaya A Dadi & Zureen Elina Mohd Dom; SFCs & Safiyyah Omar, Mohd Khairulhazman Ghazali & Ahmad Hafizuddin Manjur Ahmad; FCs

An adjudication decision after having been enforced pursuant to s. 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') as an order of the court cannot be stayed pursuant to s. 16(1)(b) of the CIPAA. The parties to an adjudication have no option but to comply with the orders of the adjudication decision unless, and only unless, it has been set aside under s. 16 of the CIPAA. Any other construction and interpretation would defeat the purpose, object and intent of CIPAA.
Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd v. ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2024] 5 CLJ 16 [CA]

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication decision - Stay - Application for - Application for stay under s. 16 of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') - Whether stay could be granted under s. 16(1)(b) after adjudication decision enforced under s. 28 of CIPAA as order of court - Whether granting of stay would be in excess of jurisdiction when adjudication decision remained intact and not set aside - Whether orders of adjudication decision ought to be complied with - View Esteem Sdn Bhd v. Bina Puri Holdings Sdn Bhd




(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-2-01-2023(W))
  • For the appellant - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Arthur Wang Ming Way, Lam Wai Loon, Serene Hiew Mun Yi, Pan Yan Teng & Lim Ren Wei; M/s Harold & Lam Partnership
  • For the respondent - Cyrus Das, Edwin Lim & Ng Sim Hong; M/s Edwin Lim & Suren
(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-34-05-2023(W))
  • For the appellant - Cyrus Das, Edwin Lim & Ng Sim Hong; M/s Edwin Lim & Suren
  • For the respondent - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Arthur Wang Ming Way, Lam Wai Loon, Serene Hiew Mun Yi, Pan Yan Teng & Lim Ren Wei; M/s Harold & Lam Partnership

(i) Motif tidak diperlukan untuk membuktikan satu kesalahan membunuh tetapi jika dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan, motif akan menyokong kes pendakwaan terhadap tertuduh; (ii) Niat bersama, bawah s. 34 Kanun Keseksaan, boleh dibuktikan dengan membuat inferens daripada keadaan fakta kes dan perlakuan tertuduh.
Dinishwaran Raman & Yang Lain lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2024] 5 CLJ 40 [CA]

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Tertuduh-tertuduh didapati bersalah bawah s. 302 dibaca bersama-sama s. 34 Kanun Keseksaan atas kesalahan membunuh - Si mati ditemukan mati dalam tong drum - Tertuduh-tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati - Sama ada motif dan niat bersama untuk membunuh si mati berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada keterangan saksi utama kredibel dan benar - Sama ada hakim bicara mempertimbangkan pembelaan tertuduh-tertuduh - Kanun Keseksaan, ss. 34 & 302




  • Bagi pihak tertuduh pertama - N Sivananthan; T/n Sivananthan Jasmine Cheong & Mithun Raj; T/n Cheong & Maman
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh ketiga - M Manoharan, M Hariharan & Subramaniam Paramasivam; T/n M Manoharan & Co
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh keempat - Burhanudeen Abdul Wahid; T/n Burhan & Co
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh kelima - Afifuddin Ahmad Hafifi & Hafizuddin Salehuddin; T/n Salehuddin Saidin & Assocs
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh keenam - Amer Hamzah Arshad, Joshua Tay & Siti Summaiyah Ahmad Jaafar; T/n Amer Bon
  • Bagi pihak tertuduh ketujuh - Kitson Foong & Vam Sher Mooi; T/n Kit & Assocs
  • Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, Mohd Fairuz Johari & Mohd Fuad Abdul Aziz TPR; Jabatan Peguam Negara

(i) The court has a discretion to invoke s. 265A of the Criminal Procedure Code to allow a witness to give their evidence anonymously; (ii) When a question arises as to the effect of any provision of the Federal Constitution in any proceeding before another court, the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to determine the question and remit the case to the other court to be disposed of in accordance with the determination; (iii) A trial judge could not be said to have failed to consider an accused's cautioned statement, merely because he makes no mention of the said statement, when in his deliberations he had pointed out all the substance contained in the said cautioned statement and analysed them.
Yong Choo Kiong v. PP [2024] 5 CLJ 69 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused charged in High Court for offence of rape of domestic helper - Penal Code, s. 376 - Accused sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and two strokes of cane - Whether trial judge erred in invoking s. 265A of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether trial judge erred in accepting evidence of victim as credible and corroborated - Whether investigation shoddy and incomplete - Whether defence considered

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Witness - Anonymous evidence - Accused charged in High Court for offence of rape of domestic helper - High Court allowed witnesses to testify anonymously - Whether discretion of court - Whether prerequisites for anonymous testimony fulfilled - Whether accused's right to fair trial compromised - Whether there was misdirection committed by trial judge - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 265A




  • For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Rajpal Singh, Salim Bashir, Tiew Poh Nee, Low Wei Lon & Hannah Kam; M/s Hisyam Teh & Co & M/s Rajpal, Firah & Vishnu
  • For the respondent - Mohd Amril Johari & Mohd Fuad Abdul Aziz; AG's Chambers

A person shall not apply to the court for reliefs unless that person has first exhausted all other domestic remedies available to him under an applicable Act. Pursuant to s. 120 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, an aggrieved party can lodge an appeal to the appeals tribunal (if he is aggrieved or his interest is adversely affected by a decision or direction (but not a determination) of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission ('MCMC'), or to the Minister (if he is aggrieved or his interest is adversely affected by a determination of the MCMC)). Further, all parties affected by a court order must be made parties to a suit as a failure to add a necessary and proper party is fatal to an application.
Awesome Broadcasting Sdn Bhd v. MYTV Broadcasting Sdn Bhd [2024] 5 CLJ 98 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Ex parte interim injunction - Application for - Application to restrain notice of suspension of digital services due to non-payment of indebted sum - Suspension order permitted by Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission - Whether application premature - Whether all other domestic remedies exhausted before applying to court for reliefs - Whether proper appeal mechanism under s. 120(1) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is to challenge decision at appeals tribunal or Minister - Failure to add proper and necessary party to suit - Whether fatal - Whether there were serious issues to be tried - Whether application ought to be dismissed




  • For the plaintiff - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah & Wee Yeong Kang; M/s Shafee & Co For the defendant - Gopal Sreenevasan & Celine Lim Tze Hui; M/s Cheang & Ariff

(i) A marriage is a voluntary agreement between consenting adults. As long as there is no violation of any law, parties to a marriage have the right to make decisions about their own relationships and lifestyle preferences according to their unique needs, desires and circumstances. This includes deciding the terms and boundaries of their marriage. No external entity, including the court, should have the authority to dictate the dynamics of a married couple's life within their marriage. In the present case, the petitioner, who had tolerated her husband's infidelity cannot cite adultery as the cause of marital breakdown, especially when the marital agreement agreed and entered into by the parties permitted the husband to maintain at least one mistress during the course of the marriage; (ii) There is no guaranteed continuity in the exact standard of living for a spouse, post-divorce. While the legal system strives to achieve fairness, it could not ensure identical outcomes for every divorcing couple due to the multifaceted nature of individual circumstances. Hence, all that the court has to ensure is that there is no drastic change in the living conditions of the spouse receiving maintenance, especially if the marriage had lasted for a significant duration.
HLC v. PTL & Anor [2024] 5 CLJ 117 [HC]


FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Petition - Maintenance - Spousal maintenance - Whether maintenance sum sought by petitioner wife reasonable - Whether petitioner wife fulfilled 'means and needs' test to justify claim for lump sum/monthly maintenance - Factors considered in determining maintenance sum - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976

FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Petition - Maintenance - Maintenance for children - Maintenance for special needs child and 18 year-old son who was still studying - Whether respondent husband obligated to maintain children - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976

FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial property - Division of assets - Petition for divorce - Claim for matrimonial assets - Whether petitioner wife entitled to equal division of all material assets - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976

CONTRACT: Agreement - Marital agreement - Post-nuptial agreement - Marital agreement contained provisions for adultery and spousal and child maintenance - Whether marital agreement valid and enforceable - Whether voluntarily entered into by parties - Whether executed under conditions of ignorance, pressure and duress - Whether clauses contained in marital agreement ought to be upheld - Whether there was acquiescence to adultery - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 56



  • For the petitioner - M Kamalam & Eugene Teo; M/s Kamalam & Assocs
  • For the respondent and co-respondent - Lee Sok Wah & Nur Amira Hidayah Razali; M/s Lee Sok Wah & Co



LNS Article(s)

    by Nur Amalia binti A Abdul Bari[i] Dr Jaganraj Ramachandran[ii] [2024] CLJU(A) xli

  2. [2024] CLJU(A) xli


    Nur Amalia binti A Abdul Bari[i]
    Dr Jaganraj Ramachandran[ii]


    Historically the monarchs were the rulers of the land, with the era of modernisation, democracy and a centralised government emerged as the way forward. With that the systems of monarch in many jurisdictions had naturally withered away. However, the monarchs had remained relevant in some jurisdictions like Malaysia, the United Kingdom, Brunei, and many others. It is seen that for the monarch to stay in power, there needs be the element of relevance, only if the monarch is relevant will it then continue to flourish. In nations like the UK and in Malaysia, the Constitution largely regulates the role of the monarch as the head of State, and the keeper of the faith. In jurisdictions like in Brunei a greater degree of autonomy is given to the monarch. In this article we shall examine the dynamics of the monarch in Malaysia and in Brunei and examine the parameters of powers with reference to the Constitution, the history, the social backdrop of both nations. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the difference and similarities between the systems of monarchy in Malaysia and Brunei. The methodology is doctrinal, the results found are that the Malaysian monarchy system is a constitutional monarchy. The Brunei system on the other hand, is an absolute monarchy. The contribution of this paper is to highlight the similarities and differences between both systems.

    . . .

    [i] Law Student, Taylor's University, Lakeside Campus, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.

    [ii] PhD (Malaya), LLM (Malaya), LLB (Hons) (London), Senior Lecturer I, Taylor's University, Lakeside Campus, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.

    by Kevin De Rozario* [2024] CLJU(A) xlii

  4. [2024] CLJU(A) xlii


    Kevin De Rozario*


    There is no one accurate definition of sports law. Authors and academicians of yester years have come up with substantive variables on what it actually entails.

    According to Professor Gardiner, sports law is largely an amalgamation of inter-related legal disciplines involving such areas as contract, taxation, employment, competition and criminal law, but dedicated legislation and case law have developed and will continue to do so (Gardiner et al, 1998). Professor Carter seems to propound that the field of sports law has moved beyond the traditional antitrust and labour law boundaries into sports representation and legal ethics, sports and corporate structure, sports and disability, sports and race, sports and gender, sports and taxation, international issues in sports law and others (Carter, 1999).

    . . .

    *Senior Partner (Litigation), Messrs Khairuddin Ngiam & Tan.


Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 852 Control of Smoking Products For Public Health Act 2024 Not Yet In Force - -
ACT 851 Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 35; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 51; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 71; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 79; the Entertainments Duty Act 1953 [Act 103] see s 87; the Customs Act 1967 [Act 235] see s 89; the Excise Act 1976 [Act 176] see s 91; the Goods Vehicle Levy Act 1983 [Act 294] see s 93; the Windfall Profit Levy Act 1998 [Act 592] see s 95; the Tourism Tax Act 2017 [Act 791] see s 97; the Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 110; the Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 126 and the Departure Levy Act 2019 [Act 813] see s 141 - -
ACT 850 Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023 1 January 2024 [PU(B) 584/2023] except s 37 and 38 - -
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 - -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1707 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2024 1 January 2024 ACT 445
ACT A1706 Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2024 20 May 2024 - sections 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9; 1 January 2024 - section 5 and 6; Year of assessment 2024 and subsequent years of assessment - section 7 ACT 53
ACT A1705 Police (Amendment) Act 2024 10 May 2024 ACT 344
ACT A1704 Supply (Reallocation of Appropriated Expenditure) Act 2024 3 January 2024  
ACT A1703 Supplementary Supply (2023) Act 2024 10 May 2024  


Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 124/2024 Local Speed Limit (Federal Roads) (West Malaysia) (Amendment) Order 2024 10 May 2024 15 May 2024 PU(A) 462/1991
PU(A) 123/2024 Malaysian Biofuel Industry (Exemption) Order 2024 9 May 2024 15 May 2024 ACT 666
PU(A) 122/2024 Fisheries (Prohibition of Import, Etc., of Fish) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 9 May 2024 1 July 2024 PU(A) 441/1990
PU(A) 121/2024 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 6) Order 2024 2 May 2024 3 May 2024 ACT 333
PU(A) 120/2024 Employees Provident Fund (Amendment) Rules 2024 30 April 2024 11 May 2024 PU(A) 493/1991


Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 180/2024 Notice To Third Parties 21 May 2024 22 May 2024 ACT 613
PU(B) 179/2024 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose 21 May 2024 22 May 2024 ACT 828
PU(B) 178/2024 Notice To Third Parties 21 May 2024 22 May 2024 ACT 613
PU(B) 177/2024 Notice Regarding The Certification and Inspection of The Supplementary Electoral Roll For The Month of April 2024 21 May 2024 22 May 2024 PU(A) 293/2002
PU(B) 176/2024 Results of Contested Election and Statement of The Poll After The Official Addition of Votes For The By-Election of N.06 Kuala Kubu Baharu Selangor 17 May 2024 18 May 2024 PU(A) 386/1981

Legislation Alert


Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 314/1980 Fisheries (Prohibition of Method of Fishing) Regulations 1980 PU(A) 116/2024 1 May 2024 Schedule
PU(A) 100/2016 Malaysian Aviation Commission (Aviation Services Charges) Regulations 2016 PU(A) 115/2024 1 June 2024 First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Schedules
AKTA 445 Akta Cukai Aktiviti Perniagaan Labuan 1990 AKTA A1707 1 Januari 2024 Seksyen 22DA
ACT 445 Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 ACT A1707 1 January 2024 Section 22DA
ACT 53 Income Tax Act 1967 (Revised 1971) ACT A1706 20 May 2024 - sections 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9; 1 January 2024 - section 5 and 6; Year of assessment 2024 and subsequent years of assessment - section 7 Sections 2, 15C, 65C, 82, 82C and 107C; Schedule 1 and 6


Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 402/2022 Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 22) 2022 PU(A) 113/2024 30 April 2024
PU(A) 402/2022 Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 22) Order 2022 PU(A) 113/2024 30 April 2024
PU(A) 159/2022 Perintah Komunikasi Dan Multimedia (Pelantikan Pengerusi Tribunal Rayuan) 2022 PU(A) 85/2024 13 Mac 2024
PU(A) 159/2022 Communications and Multimedia (Appointment of Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal) Order 2022 PU(A) 85/2024 13 March 2024
PU(A) 103/2016 Medical Device (Exemption) Order 2016 PU(A) 78/2024 6 March 2024

Copyright © CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here