Zharif Badrul menganalisa keputusan penghakiman kes UKM4 oleh Mahkamah Tinggi.
Discriminatory government spending seems to be nonjusticiable!
Satu lagi keputusan Mahkamah yang menafsirkan Perlembagaan Negeri menyebelahi pihak Barisan Nasional.
The bold Federal Court decision that decided whether you can set aside a winding up order obtained in the absence of the Respondent company. Oh wait, they didn’t do that.
A commentary of the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s dismissal of the challenge mounted by the infamous UKM 4 against the constitutionality of Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (Act 30).
The Court of Appeal does an about turn and issues its scintillating grounds of judgment on the Abdul Rahim Bin Abd Rahaman appeal about the constitutionality of section 377A and 377B of the Penal Code, and punishment of whipping for males.
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.
A critical commentary about the Federal Court decision of Kerajaan Malaysia v Lay Kee Tee [2009] 1 MLJ 1 concerning its interpretation of section 5 and 6 of the Government Proceeding Act 1956 and its impact on vicarious liability claims against the Government.
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 [2010] 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 [2010] 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.
(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 [...]
Loading ...