Tutorial 1

1)Attorney General Malaysia v Manjeet Singh Dhillon

Facts: The defendant affirmed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council in his capacity as secretary.
The affidavit was filed in support of an application for leave for an order of committal to prison of
the Acting Lord President. It was alleged that he was guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court by
attempting to prevent, frustrate and interfere with a sitting of the Court, thus abusing his official
position. The defendant, who admitted that he had affirmed the affidavit in his representative
capacity, was found guilty of contempt of court.

Held: 1) The Malaysian Parliament had not so far passed any law under art. 10(2) of the
FederalConstitution to impose on the right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by
art.10(1) of the Federal Constitution any restrictions designed to provide against contempt of Court
except for s. 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 which provides that the SupremeCourt shall
have power to punish any contempt of itself. Therefore pursuant to s. 3 of theCivil Law Act the
common law as administered in England should be applied in this country.
2) In absence of any specific local legislation concerning contempt of the court, English common law
is applicable.

2). Jamil Bin Harun v Yang Kamsiah & Anor [1984] 1 MLJ 217

Facts: Yang Kamsiah had been run down by a bus which cause her to suffer from a very serious brain
injury and turned her into a subnormal child with permanent mental & physical disabilities. The trial
judge then ordered a global sum of $75000 as general damages with the “usual” interest of 6% and
the federal court rejected the trial judge’s view. The FC held that it was necessary for the court in a
personal injury case where there is an element, of future loss/damage to itemise its award. The
federal court accepts the guidance of the House of Lords in the English case Lim Poh Choo v Camden
& Islington Area Health Authority [1980].

Held: Courts in Malaysia can decide whether to follow English Law in regards to the circumstances
that the written law permits & modern English authorities maybe persuasive but are not binding.
The written law in Malaysia doesn’t forbids itemisation of damages in personal damages case. The
FC was fully entitled to accept the principle of assessment laid down in the Lim Poh Choo’s case.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

3) Tan Mooi Liang v Lim Soon Seng & Ors [1974] 2 MLJ 60

Facts: In this case the appellant and the 4 respondents were partners in the business of dealers
and distributors in sundry goods on 1 "July 1971. On 15 February 1973 the appellant gave
notice of his intention" to dissolve the partnership "and later applied for the order that the
partnership be wound up, the taking of accounts and the appointment of a receiver. The
respondents pleaded that the notice given by the appellant was ineffective to dissolve the
partnership and that it amounted to A notice of intention to withdraw from the partnership
The appellant applied by motion for the appointment of a receiver and manager. The learned
trial judge dismissed the motion and the appellant appealed to the federal court.

Held: Thus, the former Federal Court held that since the Contracts (Malay States) Ordinance
1950 contained many provisions relating to the partnership, which constituted 'other
provision' concerning the partnership within the meaning of section 5 (1) of the Civil Law
Ordinance 1956, the English law did not apply to the matter in dispute. The court held that
the English principle did not bind it even though there was no provision in the Contract
(Malay States) Ordinance 1950 on the issue, when the Contract Act 1950 is silent on the
meaning or interpretation or legal term found in the act , the courts in Malaysia are not bound
to follow the meaning of the term as understood at common law. They are free to adopt,
adapt to develop law in Malaysia.

4) T Damodaran v Choe Kuan Him [1979] 2 MLJ 267

Held: “The National Land Code applies to Malaysia the Torrens system of registration of title
of land. The whole purpose of the system is to get away from the complicated system of rules
which in England regulate dealings with land, particularly those relating to such matters as
notice of encumbrances and trust.”

5) Chin Choy & Ors v Collector Of Stamp Duties [1981] 2 MLJ 47

Held: section 6 of immovable property- "Nothing in this part shall be taken to introduce in
Malaysia or any of the States comprised therein any part of the law of England relating to the
tenure or conveyance or assurance of or succession to any immovable property or any estate,
right or interest there” . The court held that there was no room for importation of English
Law.

6) Re KO (An Infant) [1990] 1 MLJ 494