AT THE SHAH ALAM COURT TODAY

 WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SHAH ALAM COURT TODAY CAN BE DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS...

" KALAH JADI ABU- MENANG JADI ARANG"

SIMPLY PUT IT WAS JUST A WASTE OF TIME & ENERGY.( My lawyer friend got  sick so I had to stand in for him)

ON SUCCESS

Getting ready is the secret of success.- Henry Ford

SOME INFO FOR THE LAW STUDENT

The Malaysian Bar is a creature of statute established under the Advocates and Solicitors' Ordinance 1947 which ordinance was subsequently repealed by the Legal Profession Act 1976. It is an independent Bar whose aim is to uphold the rule of law and the cause of justice and protect the interest of the legal profession as well as that of the public.

The legal profession in Malaysia is a fused one with a membership of approximately 12,000 members and its membership is increasing by 10 -15% annually. Each advocate and solicitor is automatically a member of the Malaysian Bar so long as he/she holds a valid Practising Certificate.

MR.STUDENT-HELLO THERE?

 I are the light that enlightens your personal darkness

 I may sound arrogant- but you are nothing without me

 Are you born rich? No silver spoon in your mouth?

 So study lah!!! What's the problem Mr. Lawyer??

SHROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES - VOL7 PAGE 1666

MEMBER OF HOUSE HOLD ( Statutory Definition)

" person to be regarded as a "member" of a particular household , even if he does not live in that household, if he visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of it." ( Domestic Violence,Crime and Victims's Act 2004 (c28), s5)

SHROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES - VOLUME 2 PAGE 951

FAIRNESS

The requirement of fairness in respect of the actions of an administrative body "is not fixed and its content depends upon all the circumstances and, in particular, the nature of the decision which the body is required to make." (R ( Roberts) v Parole Board [2005]UKHL 45)

THE DEATH PENALTY-ABOLISHMENT?

 I felt very much sorry for this lady who stoop up to speak. She was commenting on the Soosilawat's murder case. (...sampai mayat pun tak dapat)

PROF. KHAW LAKE TEE

PROF KHAW LAKE TEE TALKING ON THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE DEATH PENALTY AT KLCC ON THE  13TH OCTOBER 2011.

13th OCTOBER 2011-KLCC

I think a distinction needs to be made between drug traffickers and murderers in  respect of this matter. Most of the convicted drug traffickers today happen to be "mules" -used by some unknown person or persons. Those convicted on this ground, perhaps the death sentence should be commuted to a life sentence.But those convicted of murders, the capital punishment should be upheld. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. One such example is the serial killer- Ted Bundy. Malaysia has had its share of these criminals-from Botak Chin to Bentong Kali and Mona Fendi who hacked her victim into 18 pieces.

Parliament has to stay it's course without repealing this law and mete out a  deterrent sentence to potential would be murderers. Of course, this does not mean that there will be  no more murders in Malaysia- but  the Goverment can make it's stand clear to all those living under the  Malaysian flag- for those convicted of murder, the consequences can be most severe.

[2011] 1 ILR 507- SUNNY KHOO

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

[2011] 1 ILR 507- SUNNY KHOO

SUNNY KHOO V YB MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA, MALAYSIA, KUALA LUMPUR

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR AZIAH ALI J

[JUDICIAL REVISION] NO:R1-25-143-2008] 1ST NOVEMBER 2010

Administrative Law- JR- Statutory Body - Decision of Minister  not to refer representation on dismissal to IC for adjudication - Whether decision justified in view of  reinstatement offer made- IRA 1967 s20(3)

The applicant applied for JR under O53 Rules of the HC 1980 for an order for certiorari to quash the decision made by the Minister under S20(3) of the IRA 1967 in refusing to refer the applicant's representation to the IC for adjudication.

Held: the applicant refused the offer of re-instatement to his previous post with the same terms and conditions of employment. If the employer reinstates or offers to reinstate  the employee to his former employment without loss of any benefits or privileges, there is simply nothing to refer because of the re-instatement or the offer thereof.

1127

6967335

[2011]3 ILR page 241

HARIANTO EFFENDY ZAKARIA &ORS V MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA , KUALA LUMPUR - AZIAH ALI J
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO:R3(1)- 25-367-2009] 25TH OCTOBER 2010

In considering this application, I am mindful of the approach that this Court ought to take and I can no better than to refer to the judgment of Mohd Ghazali Yusoff JCA ( as His Lordship then was) in the case of Mernara Panglobal SDn. Bhd v Arokianathan Sivaprasagam [2006] 2 CLJ 501 of JR as follows:

I would think that in dealing with Judicial  Review a Judge should have the following principles, inter alia, in the forefront of his mind:

1. JR is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made.
2. The HC is not entitled on an application for JR to consider whether the decision itself, on the merits of the facts, was fair and reasonable.
3. The HC through JR, should not introduce technicalities of the Court of Law to the Industrial Court;this would certainly be so as s.30(5) of the Act imposes a duty upon the Industrial court to have regard to substantial merits of a case rather than to technicalities and it also requires the Industrial Court to decide a case in accordance with equity and good conscience.
4. the main and only function of the IC in dealing with a reference under Sect.20 of the Act is to determine whether the misconduct or irregularities complained of  by the Management as to the grounds of dismissal were in fact committed by the workman and if so,whether such grounds constitute just cause for the dismissal.
5. the Court should not be burdened with the technicalities regarding standard of proof, the rules of evidence and procedure that are applied in the Court  of  law;

Ranjit Kaur a/p S Gopal Singh v Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn. Bhd [2010] 6 MLJ -at page 1

Harianto's Case has conveniently by-passed  the latest views on JR in Ranjit Kaurs Case. Why are the lower Courts still  stating that JR is not concerned whether the decision itself, on the merits of the facts was fair and reasonable when the Federal Court had stated  in Ranjit's case that there is no more distinction between JR and the Appeal  process?

There is a  glaring inconsistency now in this aspect of the law.
 
Students who want to score an "A' for this paper need to thrash out this issue  in a meticulously manner.