MyCase Law Monthly latest updates will be sent to users by 1st week of every month
Judges indeed have a discretion to deliver his grounds of judgment either in the National Language or the English Language and this is not contrary to Art. 152 of the Constitution and s. 8 of the NLA 1963/67 for the grounds of judgment to be in the English Language, as in the present case.
In summary, an intended applicant for leave to appeal to this Court should consider the following points before filing his application, namely:
1. Basic prerequisites:
a. that leave to appeal must be against the decision of the Court of Appeal;
b. that the cause or matter must have been decided by the High Court exercising its original jurisdiction;
c. that the question must involve a question of law which is of general principle not previously decided by the Federal
Court (first limb of section 96(a);
d. that the issue to be appealed against has been decided by the Court of Appeal.
2. As a rule leave will normally not be granted in interlocutory appeals.
3. Whether there has been a consistent judicial opinion which may be uniformly wrong e.g. Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. vs
Boonsom Boonyanit @ Sun Yok Eng.
4. Whether there is a dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal.
5. Leave to appeal against interpretation of statutes will not be given unless it is shown that such interpretation is of public
6. That leave will not normally be given:
a. where it merely involves interpretation of an agreement unless this Court is satisfied that it is for the benefit of the trade
or industry concerned;
b. the answer to the question is not abstract, academic or hypothetical;
c. either or both parties are not interested in the result of the appeal.
7. That on first impression the appeal may or may not be successful; if it will inevitably failed leave will not be granted.
“Whether the business of the Appellants (plaintiffs) as Memorial Park operators which consists of, inter alia, the sale of burial plots and urn compartments fall within the meaning of section 84 of Part IV Division 5 of the Companies Act, 1965 thereby requiring compliance with the provisions therein”. There is a virtually no common law authority in this country on this important question of law that attempts to protect the public against possible losses in a free market enterprise".
In the matter between Chang Siew Lan and Loh Chooi Teng, the Federal Court (Gopal Sri Ram FCJ), made a pointer to Conveyancing practitioners that....
"Whether a registered proprietor of land may create a lien over his or her title in favour of a 3rd party borrower?"
The Federal Court held in the negative and allowed the appeal with costs and reinstating the High Court Order.
The Federal Court in Tan Ying Hong Vs Tan Sian San & 2 Others held the acquirer inherits a deferred title or interest. It also held that the Federal Court in Adorna Properties had misconstrued s.340(1),(2) and (3) of the NLC by erroneous conclusion that the proviso appearing in sub-(3) equally applies to sub-(2).
" Whether an acquirer of a registered charge or other interest or title under the National Land Code 1965 by means of a forged instrument, acquires an immediate indefeasible interest or title".