CASE SUMMARY: PART 20

Portugal vs. India [1960] ICJ Rep 6
●Public International Law●
“Portugal claimed a right of passage between its enclave territories in India. The court agreed that such a right of passage for peaceful purpose could exist on the basis of local customary law between the two states”


Pow Hing & Anor vs. Register of Titles, Malacca [1981] 1 MLJ 155
●Land Law●
“As long as an instrument of dealing is in order and fit for registration, it is the duty of the Register to register it”


PP vs. Abdul Manap [1956] 22 MLJ 214
●Criminal Law●
“It is true that one does not ‘weigh in golden scales’ the quantum of force which is or is not permitted, but the frame of mind in which the force is applied is of importance”


PP vs. Ngoi Ming Sean [1982] 1 MLJ 24
●Criminal Law●
“The Penal Code in Malaysia provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense of person’s body. But there is no such right where the person has time to seek the protection of the public authorities”

PP vs. Visuvanathan [1978] 1 MLJ 159 (HC, Singapore)
●Criminal Law●
“In our judgment for the application of clause (c) of s 300 of the Penal Code, all that the prosecution need to prove is:
(1) that the accused did an act which caused the death of the deceased
(2) that the said act was done with the intention of causing bodily injury
(3) that the injury caused-
(a) was intended and was not accidental or otherwise unintentional and
(b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”


Prof Ahmad Ibrahim: The civil Law Ordinance in Malaysia [1971] 2 MLJ iv
●EQUITY●
“English law and equity was introduced into the Malay states by legislation and by decisions of the British judges”


Puncak Klasik Sdn Bhd vs. All Persons in Occupation of the Wooden House [1996] 5 MLJ 92.
●Land Law●
“On equity, it is now trite that our land laws are governed by the National Land Code which does not allow the law to be tempered with equity (Verama v Arumugam...). On the facts, even the principle of equitable estoppel does not apply the principle of equitable estoppel has no application.”







Queen-Empress vs. Niddha [1891] XIV All 38
●Criminal Law●
“If one attempts robbery one can only be charged under s 399. If one attempts culpable homicide not amounting to murder one can only be charged under s 308. If one attempts to commit a crime and there is no express provision elsewhere for that type of attempted crime one can only be charged with the provision punishing the full offence as read with s 511”


Queen-Express vs. Kadar Nasyer Shah [1896] ILR 23 Cal 604
●Criminal Law●
“It might be said of our law as it has been said of the law of England by Sir J Stephen that even as it stands, the law extends the exemption as well to cases where insanity affects the offender’s will and emotions as to those where it affects his cognitive faculties, because where the will and emotions are affected by the offender being subjected to insane impulse, it is difficult to say that his cognitive faculties are not affected”


Queen vs. Judge of City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273
●Land Law●
Lord Esher held that, “if the words of an Act of Parliament are clear, you must take them in their ordinary and natural meaning, unless the meaning produces a manifest absurdity.”

R vs. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet (No 3) [1999] 2 All ER 97
●Public International Law●
“The immunity of former heads of sates might be diminished in the face of gross violations of human rights”