On Thursday, 26 August 2010, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed a challenge by Nor Hisham Osman on the constitutionality of the charge against him under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988. The impact of this decision is very wide: any “offensive” communication online made with intent to annoy another person can now be criminalised.
The grounds of judgment delivered by Dato Hj Ghazali Bin Hj. Cha J on the writ of habeas corpus for 8 detainees held without trial under the ISA for allegedly having links to Al-Qaeda.
A consideration of Syarizan Sudirman & Ors v Abdul Rahman Bukit & Anor  3 CLJ 877 and the extent of a policeman’s duty of care towards a suspect.
On 28 June 2010 the High Court ruled that the SYABAS water concession can be made public, where Judicial Commissioner Hadhariah Syed Ismail held that it was in the public’s interest that the agreement should be disclosed.
The grounds of judgment in Member of Parliament for Batu Chua Tian Chang, a.k.a. Tian Chua’s appeal in the Kuala Lumpur High Court against majistrate court sentence in his conviction for causing hurt to a police constable and stopping him from discharging his duty two years ago.
Can a judge who previously presided over a matter then take up the case as counsel after his retirement from the bench? If you don’t know the answer because you recently had a lobotomy, consider the High Court decision of Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang v Tropiland Sdn Bhd  2 CLJ 1061.
The grounds of decision of Ariff Yusof J in upholding the ban on K. Arumugam’s Tamil book, “March 8” regarding the violent clashes in Kampung Medan on 8th March 2001.
On 9 February 2010 the Federal Court (Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA, Arifin Zakaria CJ (Malaya), Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdul Hamid Embong FCJJ) handed down a unanimous decision on Nizar v Zambry. The judgment of the court was read by Chief Judge, Malaya Arifin Zakaria.
A consideration of whether a judge should be permitted to change his mind about a legal issue he decided previously to the contrary.
(Note this post may contain mistakes as it is paraphrased. Full judgment will be posted soon and this post will be removed by the end of the day) 1109 no order as to costs by consent. Question 1 answered in affirmative, question 2 answered that extraneous means possible, question 3 if mb doesn’t resign, post […]
Pondering why the Attorney General Chambers of 1Malaysia (1AG) has not yet charged Datuk Nasir Safar under the Sedition Act 1948 and its relevance to the Federal Court decision of Lim Guan Eng v PP  2 CLJ 541.
The Federal Court handed McDonald’s a loss in finding that the use of the “Mc” prefix by McCurry Restaurant did not amount to passing off of the McDonald’s trade name and get-up.
The grounds of decision of Ariff Yusof J in the SIS book banning case.
The Malaysian High Court in Bakri Mohamad Ali v PP  1 CLJ 610 has finally judicially defined and explained a phrase that has vexed Malaysians for some time. Let us now rejoice and use it with new found confidence and variations.
All eyes will be on the Federal Court this Thursday as it delivers a major decision whether to end nine years of gross injustice caused by the 2000 decision of the Federal Court in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit (“Adorna Properties”) or to follow and further entrench Adorna Properties in the laws relating to property sales by forgers in this country. It is one case which will be closely watched by property owners and conveyancers both within and without this country.
The High Court grounds of judgment of the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v 1. Menteri Dalam Negeri 2. Kerajaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur High Court Judicial Review: R1 – 25 – 28 – 2009 is available here.
Justice Zabidin Diah’s decision on July 16, 2009 allowing the defence pre-trial discovery of certain documents may be downloaded here. The order was on July 24, 2009 stayed pending disposal of the prosecution’s appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The 3rd grounds of judgment by Datuk Zainun bt. Ali JCA may be downloaded here. The first two grounds are found here.
The Outline of Reasons delivered by the Court of Appeal on July 2, 2009 is here. The Court held inter alia: I. On the issue of legitimate expectation that the AG would not in any way partake in the prosecution of DSAI:
Loyarburok makes available the written groudns of Dato’ Md. Raus bin Sharif JCA and Dato’ Ahmad bin Haji Maarop JCA