Judicial Immunity In Malaysia

Judicial immunity of judges in Malaysia is provide under Section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 which states that all judges are immune from all civil liability in respect of anything done or said by them . In the High Court case of Thiruchelvasegaram Manickavasegar v Mahadevi Nadchatiram , Azmel Maamor said that Section 14 (1) of the Act provides judicial immunity for judges and other persons acting judicially, as long as they done it in good faith . The existence of judicial immunity is to enables judges, counsel and witnesses to speak and act fearlessly and to prevent inequity from being fear to be sued or prosecuted. Chief Justice Zaki Azmi claimed that the judiciary in Malaysia should be observed by the public as an

The first defendant was admitted as the advocate and solicitor of the High Court. He took four years nine months and 22 days in legal practice and also a few years to teach full time in a law faculty. He then was appointed as a chairman of the industrial court. However, the appellant claimed that the defendant’s appointment was void due to the defendant did not fulfil the requirements as stated in Section 23A (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The issue arose, whether the defendant was considered for a judicial post. The learned judicial commissioner held that the defendant’s appointment is therefore null and void as in Section 23A (1) must refers to an advocate and solicitor who has been dealt with actual legal

Any conduct which is calculated to bring a court or a judge into contempt or to lower his authority or to interference with the lawful process of the court is called contempt of court. In most cases, the judge has the power to punish any contempt by individuals or organizations under Art 126 of the Federal Constitution. This is to protect the administration of justice from undue interference and to maintain the dignity authority of the judge. In the case of Attorney General, Malaysia v Manjeet Singh Dhillon , English common law principle of contempt of court is applicable under Section3 of Civil Law Act 1956. Contempt of court may be divided into civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is the disobedience to a court’s order. Criminal contempt is the conduct which tends to hinder the process of administration of justice. Criminal contempt is categorized into contempt in the face of the court, contempt by publication and scandalizing the