NAME AND MATRIX NO:
ANIS FATIN BINTI ABDUL RAHIM
A156394
PREPARED FOR:
DR. HANIWARDA BINTI YAAKOB
COURSE NAME AND CODE:
UUUK1053- PENGENALAN KEPADA SISTEM UNDANG-UNDANG MALAYSIA 1
TOPIC:
APPLICATION OF ENGLISH STATUTE IN MALAYSIA UNDER CIVIL LAW ACT 1956
Contents
1.Introduction. 3
2.General Application of English Law Based on Section 3 Civil Law Act 1956. 3
3.Specific Application of English Law in Commercial Matters or Mercantile Law - Section 5 Civil Law Act 1956. 7
4. Non Application of English Land Law Under Section 6 Civil Law Act 1956. 10
5. Conclusion. 12
Question 4: Professor Bartholomew in his article, “ the Commercial Law of Malaysia: A Study in the Reception of English Law” (1965) argued that English statutes are
…show more content…
Apart from that, it can be deduced that from section 3(1), in the absence of written law, common law and rules of equity existing in England shall be applied to Malaysian courts on (1) 7 April 1956, in West Malaysia, (2) 1 December 1951, in Sabah and (3) 12 December 1949, in Sarawak. This word ‘shall’ means that it is optional to the judges either to apply or not to apply the English common law and equity in their judgments. Now, let’s see how far the application of English Law in Malaysian courts. In the case of Mokhtar v Arumugam , the issue was whether damages in the nature of interest for delay in returning specific goods could be awarded in Malaysia. The court held that such a remedy, being a creature of English statute, is not available here. In the same vein, in the case of Leong Bee &Co v Ling Nam Rubber Works, the Privy Council made it clear that: … a fire began on a man’s property arose from some act or default for which is answerable, has no application in Malaysia and has no application there at least since the coming into force of the Civil Law Ordianance 1956, Section 3. The reason is that having been displaced by statutes,… the presumption formed no part of the common law of England as administered in England at that
What lead the colonist to turn against their mother country that some loved so much? The mother country was England and they wanted the new world to stay with them because they were making a lot of money of the colonist. They were taxing the colonies where ever they could so they could take more money away from them and to try to keep them in check. There were many different taxations that were forced upon the colonies that made the angry with their mother country and they were the sugar act, currency act, stamp act, quartering act, declaratory act and the tea act. All of these acts were not forced upon the colonist at once.
1. The English Bill of Rights: The English Bill of Rights was significant because it created a lot of rules that parliament passed. The bill created a separation of powers and limited the king and queen. These rights gave the people of England more rights and power as citizens.
Towards the end of the Revolutionary War, the founding fathers decided that that the colonies would need some form of government that would unify them. At the same time, they decided that they wanted to avoid creating a monarchial type of government from which they had just split. The period just after the Revolutionary War was a critical time for the fledging country and it was important that the government formed would not only unify the colonies and protect them, not only from foreign countries, but also from destroying themselves internally.
The appeal was dismissed and it was held that s.17 was governed by the principles in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30. Also, there are other examples of cases where Godin-Mendoza’s case was applied.
The Grenfell Tower fire tragedy is presumed to have claimed 79 lives. Initially, the local council authorities were blamed for approving the construction of substandard high-rise buildings that threatened public safety (Scott p.1). On the contrary, it appears most of these assumptions were flawed, since additional revelations were exposed. For example, construction experts blamed the rapid spread of the fire on the of the 1967 archaic design standards. In addition, the failure was attributed to the external cladding that had been installed in the £10 m refurbishment.
Here a compensation tribunal was set up to compensate the families of victims who had died in the Stardust tragedy. The grieving father of one victim sought a review of a decision made by the tribunal to award the mother of a victim compensation and the father no compensation. The court refused to quash the decision of the tribunal and, strangely, agreed that there were circumstances which justified awarding of compensation to one parent and not the other. This decision was made by a court which was quite critical of the approach taken by Lord Diplock in GCHQ. Henchy J. said he would be ‘slow to test reasonableness by seeing if it accords with logic’ and would be ‘equally slow’ to accept the moral standard criteria believing it a vague and inconsistent principle to base reasonableness on.
The government must extend the length of “perhatian” in Malaysia to five year instead two
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
It was revealed by a survey carried out by National Consumer Council how unhappy and unsatisfactory people were with the Civil Justice System. The main weaknesses identified were that the system being too slow, too complicated for ordinary people to understand and too outdated and costly. In the continued criticism of the system Lord Woolf was appointed by the government who came up with suggestions and solutions to overcome these problems. As a result Civil Procedure Rules came into force on 26th April 1999 introducing different reforms to the system. The rationale of the reforms was to avoid litigation and promote settlement between the parties at dispute.
Law personal statement main As a child, looking up to law-enforcers such as police officer’s has made me believe that Law is the backbone of our society. Without it, everyday life would not be tolerable. My passion for law developed when I stepped into the Supreme Court and watched a court case in the Old Bailey.
Introduction of statutes Statute is the main source of south African constitutional law.this is not in any way to deny or detract from the vital importance of both English and Roman-Dutch common-law sources. The statutory sources are legion, and it is not easy to task which constitutional statutes are of sufficient importance to justify their inclusion in a compilation of laws in relation to this topic. It was decided, in the end to keep basic statutes and largely to omit those dealing with specialised aspects of constitutional law. Statutes are arranged in their chronological order.
The various methods of ADR is further discussed below. Since the introduction of the CPR, ADR has significantly developed in England and Wales and the judiciary has also strongly encouraged the use of ADR. The judgments of the Court of Appeal in Cowl v Plymouth City Council and Dunnett v Railtrack plc both indicated that unreasonable failure to use ADR may be subject to cost sanctions. Indeed, the CPR have also introduced the possibility for cost sanctions if a party does not comply with the court‘s directions regarding ADR.
As human beings, we are all born with an entitlement of freedom of speech or synonymously known as freedom of expression as it is a basic human right. It is stated in the Federal Constitution and it is important for us human beings to protect our rights to freedom of speech and expression as it is the backbone for a democratic society. Having the right to express oneself freely without any restrictions is an essential part of what it means to be a free human being. Article 10 in the Federal Constitution states that; (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
The legal implications and feasibility of integrating the Syariah courts into the federal judicial system through restoration of Article 121 of Federal Constitution Prior to 1988, Article 121(1) of Federal Constitution provided as follows: Subject to Clause (2) the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely— (a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry in Kuala Lumpur; and (b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Borneo and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine;
In Malaysia, the court at the top of the hierarchy is the Federal Court. This means that all the courts are bound by its decision. Next is the Court of Appeal, then the two High Courts, and then the subordinate courts. The courts may not decline to follow the higher court’s decision on grounds that it is wrong or rendered obsolete by changing conditions or even by per incuriam. A case where the vertical operation was applied is in Harris Solid State (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Bruno Gentil s/o Pereira [1996].