Malaysian Law/Introduction/Reading case law
Elements edit
Facts edit
The significant facts that make the case unique. Example: Tai Choi Yu, the appellant has tax due payable, he was prevented from leaving Malaysia by Director of Immigration, the respondent.[1]
Issues edit
The legal questions for the court to answer.
Example: The appellant submitted that the Director General of Inland Revenue acted against the rule of natural justice. In other words, the appellant had not been given a notice to show cause why the Director General of Inland Revenue should not issue the certificate.[1]
Principles edit
The rules from statues and previous cases to discuss in the court.
Example: Rule of natural justice. In the precedent case of S Kulasingam & Anor v Commissioner of Lands Federal Territory & Ors.[1]
Ratio decidendi edit
The reasoning of the judge.
Example: We find that the words used in this section are plain and clear, and we do not think it appropriate to read the word 'permanently' into this section.[1]
Policy edit
To consistent with public policy, the courts explanations to discourage socially detrimental behavior.
Example: That, we feel is not the intention of the law because it would defeat the object and purpose of the certificate. If a notice to show cause was issued to the appellant, it would only serve as a warning of the action about to be taken against him, and this would afford him the opportunity to leave the country before the certificate can be issued.[1]
Obiter dictum edit
The extra opinion from court to form decision.
Example: We are of the view that if that were the intention of Parliament, such words as 'permanently' or 'with no intention of returning' would have been inserted after the words 'leave Malaysia' in this section.[1]