LIA 1001 LEGAL METHOD

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS
TUTORIAL WEEK 13 : STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (PART 1 )

Part A

For this part, you are required to read the following cases:
(a) KOK WAH KUAN V PP [2007] 4 CLJ 454
(b) PP v KOK WAH KUAN [2007] 6 CLJ 341

Questions:
1. In both cases, what is/are the provision(s) that became the main subject in dispute?
2. Why was/were it/they being disputed?
3. What was the implication of section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 according to the Court of
Appeal?
4. What was the implication of section 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 according to the Federal
Court?
5. Which do you think is the fairer decision and why?

Part B

6. Pick 5 terms/phrases that are interpreted by the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 and
give their meanings as accorded by the Act.

Part C

For this part, you are required to read the following cases:
(a) H Rubber Estates Bhd v Director-General of Inland Revenue [1979] 1 MLJ 115
(b) Foo Loke Ying & Anor v Television Broadcasts Ltd & Ors [1985] 2 MLJ 35
(c) Lim Moh Joo v Public Prosecutor [1970] 2 MLJ 113
(d) Re An Advocate [1964] 1 MLJ 1
(e) Leaw Mei Lee v Attorney-General & Ors [1967] 2 MLJ 62
(f) United Hokkien Cemetries, Penang v The Board, Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang [1979]
2 MLJ 121

Questions:
7. Categorise the cases above in accordance to the approaches taken by the court, namely
Literal or Golden or Purposive or Unified.
8. Does resorting to other approaches other than the Literal Approach defy the intention of
the Parliament when enacting a particular provision? If yes, why and if not, why not?
9. Does it not extend the power of the judges to that of being the legislator when allowing
them to use other approaches other than the literal approach?