Back to Top


CLJ Logo CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2013, Vol 18
2 May 2013

Print this page
Introduction:

To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=subscription

Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=bulletinsubscribe


New This Week

1. Cases Of The Week

a) SARBAN SINGH v. GINDO AJAIB SINGH & ORS

c) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BHD lwn. SIMDO SECURITY SDN BHD & SATU LAGI [2012] 1 SMC 206

b) JUDICIAL QUOTES

2. Latest Cases

a) Legal Network Series

b) CLJ 2013 Volume 3 (Part 3)

3. Articles

a) Legal Network Series Article

4. Legislation Highlights

a) Principal Acts

b) Amending Acts

c) PU(A)

d) PU(B)


CASES OF THE WEEK

SARBAN SINGH v. GINDO AJAIB SINGH & ORS
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK, MIRI
STEPHEN CHUNG J
[SUIT NO: MYY-21-1/2-2012]
20 JULY 2012

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Writ and statement of claim - Striking out - Application for - Whether claim time barred - Whether suit filed outside limitation period of two years - Limitation Ordinance of Sarawak, item 19 - Whether action maintainable under s. 2 Public Authorities Protection Act 1948

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Striking out - Whether claim time barred - Whether suit filed outside limitation period of two years - Limitation Ordinance of Sarawak, item 19 - Whether action maintainable under s. 2 Public Authorities Protection Act 1948

LIMITATION: Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Section 2 - Whether claim time barred - Whether suit filed outside limitation period of two years - Limitation Ordinance of Sarawak, item 19 - Whether action maintainable

CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BHD lwn. SIMDO SECURITY SDN BHD & SATU LAGI [2012] 1 SMC 206
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, KUALA LUMPUR
NORSHILA KAMARUDDIN HS
[SAMAN SIVIL NO: 52A-528-2011]
1 DISEMBER 2011

SEWA BELI: Perjanjian sewa beli - Kegagalan membayar - Sama ada transaksi sah - Sama ada plaintif cuai - Sama ada kecuaian boleh diperbaiki - Sama ada keperluan s. 5(1A) Akta Sewa Beli 1967 dipatuhi

JUDICIAL QUOTES

ISSUE NO. [2]: SUBRAMANIAM PARAMASIVAM v. MALAYAN FINANCE BHD [2008] 8 CLJ 52

[2] Issue: Whether a party, whose counter claim before the Sessions Court exceeded the civil jurisdiction of the Sessions Court in terms of the value of the subject matter, may unilaterally seek to transfer the case to the High Court:

"A party should make an application to transfer a Sessions Court case to the High Court by reason of value limit only after the avenue to have the matter tried before the Sessions Court, as provided for under sub-ss. (3) and (4) of s. 65, has been diligently explored. In the present case, the initiative to have the jurisdiction agreement must be made by the defendant. It is his counterclaim that exceeds the value limit of the Sessions Court. It is he who is desirous of having the case transferred to the High Court. He should have in the first place proposed to the plaintiff. And he should make the application to the High Court for the transfer of the proceeding from the Sessions Court to the High Court only if the plaintiff ... unreasonably refuses to agree to the proposal, or refuses to respond to the proposal or (has) unreasonably delayed in responding to the proposal." - per Hishamudin Mohd Yunus J in Subramaniam Paramasivam v. Malayan Finance Bhd [2008] 8 CLJ 52.

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2011] 1 LNS 192

MAHINDER SINGH DULKU v. TRIKKON CONSTRUCTION SENDIRIAN BERHAD & ANOR

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Issue estoppel - Parties - 2nd defendant not parties to the disciplinary proceedings or to appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal - Whether there was sufficient nexus between 1st and 2nd defendants for doctrine of res judicata/issue estoppel to apply to 2nd defendant - Whether estoppel/res judicata bound both defendants

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Estoppel - Issue estoppel - Validity of the Deed of Assignment - Determined by the Disciplinary Board (DB) proceedings and confirmed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal - Whether central issue for determination here was the same as that in the DB proceedings - Whether issue estoppel arose rendering it improper for this court to relitigate issue - Whether High Court decision which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal had been made with the benefit of all relevant and available evidence

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Defence and counterclaim - Issue of the validity of the Deed of Assignment - Whether res judicata - Whether a plain and obvious case for disposal by summary process

[2011] 1 LNS 236

CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION MALAYSIA BERHAD v. EVAPAK SDN BHD & ORS

BANKING: Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989, s. 2(1) - Loan extended by plaintiff to 1st defendant - Contention by defendants that plaintiff was an unlicensed moneylender - Whether plaintiff was carrying on a scheduled business of development Finance business - Whether plaintiff was a scheduled institution under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 and thus exempt from the Moneylender's Ordinance 1952

CONTRACT: Agency - Fraud - Principal and agent - 3rd defendant was the fully authorised agent of 1st defendant - Fraud perpetrated by 3rd defendant which culminated in plaintiff receiving no benefit - Whether 1st defendant liable for the loan facility granted to it by plaintiff or was it discharged from such liability because of agent's Fraud - Whether 1st defendant could rely on the 'fraudulent' acts of its agent to escape liability for an obligation owed to the plaintiff

CONTRACT: Guarantee - Liability of guarantor - Whether 3rd defendant discharged as a guarantor by reason of his resignation as a Director of 1st defendant - Effect of letter from 1stdefendant to 3rd defendant stating he was released as a guarantor in respect of loan facility granted by plaintiff to 1st defendant and indemnifying him for all losses suffered - Whether letter invalid concerning 3rd defendant and plaintiff - Whether 1st defendant could not unilaterally discharge obligations owed to plaintiff - Whether 3rd defendant could seek an indemnity from 1st defendant for losses suffered as a result of fulfilling his obligations as guarantor to plaintiff

[2011] 1 LNS 251

TEOH MENG KEAT & ANOR v. PENNY ANN MONOMOMY DAWSON

TORT: Negligence - Fire - Originated from defendant's unit and spread to and destroyed plaintiffs' adjoining unit - Whether there was any Negligent act or omission by defendant when the fire started from the air conditioning in her bedroom - Whether any Negligence on part of defendant to cause the commencement of the fire or its spreading to plaintiffs' unit - Whether fire was accidental - Whether plaintiffs had proved Negligence of defendant - Whether plaintiffs had failed to prove their case

TORT: Negligence - Res ipsa loquitor - Fire - Proof of Negligence - Whether principle of res ipsa loquitor not applicable here - Whether plaintiff still bore burden of proof to establish some Negligent acts or omissions by defendant which caused fire or its spreading

[2011] 1 LNS 394

IKEH LANTAI v. MICHAEL TALIBAN @ MICHAEL JIM & ORS

NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM: Land dispute - Customary rights over Land - Court orders dated 26 February 1994 and 15 January 2009 - Whether conferred on plaintiff native customary rights over the Land - Court orders related to 1st and not 2nd defendant - Land was registered in 2nd defendant's name but she was not named as defendant - Whether court orders had any legal force so far as 1st and 2nd defendants were concerned - Whether plaintiff's right to occupy said Land could still be disputed by 1st and 2nd defendants

NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM: Land dispute - Customary rights over Land - Whether 1st defendant's late father had acquired native customary rights over the disputed Land before plaintiff occupied the same - Whether issuance of Native Title on Lot 41 in the 1st defendant's name by the 4th defendant was in accordance with the provisions of the Sabah Land Ordinance - Whether plaintiff's claim of native customary rights over said Land was untenable - Whether plaintiff was a trespasser

NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM: Land dispute - Native title - Transfer - 1st defendant's transfer of the title Deed to 2nd defendant - Whether plaintiff had proved that 2nd defendant was a non-native - Whether transfer of Lot 41 to 2nd defendant was ultra vires s. 17(1) of the Sabah Land Ordinance

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Destruction of plaintiff's House - Letters written by 3rd and 4th defendants concerning security aspect of the demolition by 2nd defendant - 3rd and 4thdefendants did not stop 2nd defendant from dismantling plaintiff's House - Whether 3rd and 4th defendants owed plaintiff a duty of care to ensure that plaintiff's House was not demolished by 2nd defendant - Whether they owed any duty to investigate plaintiff's rights over the Land before issuing said letters in question

[2011] 1 LNS 411

WONG KAU @ WONG KON LIN & ANOR v. COTTAGE HOME SDN BHD

TORT: Trespass to Land - Defendant's creation of a trench, slope along the trench and diversion of a natural stream on plaintiffs' Land into defendant's trench - Whether defendant had encroached on plaintiffs' Land and caused damage and loss to plaintiffs - Whether defendant's trench was created on the plaintiffs' Land or on defendant's side of the Land as contended by defendant - Whether plaintiffs had acquired a valid right of way over an access road located on the defendant's Land - Whether defendant had proved that plaintiffs had wrongfully and unlawfully entered and crossed defendant's Land through access road and were liable for Trespass

TORT: Trespass to Land - Damages - Defendant's creation of a trench, slope along the trench and diversion of a natural stream on plaintiffs' Land into defendant's trench - Monetary loss and loss of future Earnings and profits from plaintiffs' fruit trees and plants - Whether plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their losses and Damages

CLJ 2013 Volume 3 (Part 3)

COURT

FEDERAL COURT

AmBank (M) Bhd v. Tan Tem Son & Another Appeal
Raus Sharif PCA, Zulkefli Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Hashim Yusoff, Ahmad Maarop, Sulong Matjeraie FCJJ
(Bankruptcy; Civil Procedure; Limitation - Bankruptcy notice - Bankruptcy notice issued more than six years after date of judgment - Whether leave required to issue bankruptcy notice) [2013] 3 CLJ 317 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

Geopancar Sdn Bhd v. Visage Engineering Sdn Bhd
Abdul Malik Ishak, Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, Balia Yusof Wahi JJCA
(Contract - Building contract - Claim for work done - Entitlement to balance sum owed for work done) [2013] 3 CLJ 355 [CA]

Jaferi Ipee v. PP
Mohamed Apandi Ali, Anantham Kasinather JJCA, David Wong Dak Wah J
(Criminal Law - Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Identification of assailants who caused death of deceased - Turnbull Guidelines) [2013] 3 CLJ 381 [CA]

HIGH COURT

CIMB Bank Bhd v. Abdul Rafi Abdul Rajak & Ors
Vernon Ong J
(Banking; Civil Procedure; Land Law - Banks and banking business - Loan secured by charge - Vesting order) [2013] 3 CLJ 397 [HC]

HMJ Shaharom & KS Wee v. Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer J
(Legal Profession - Remuneration - Professional fees) [2013] 3 CLJ 423 [HC]

Komoco Motors Pte Ltd v. Faridah Abdullah
Vernon Ong J
(Contract - Sale and purchase of land - Specific performance) [2013] 3 CLJ 440 [HC]

Paramount Link Sdn Bhd lwn. Rossington Consolidated Sdn Bhd
Yaacob Md Sam H
(Undang-undang Syarikat; Prosedur Sivil - Penggulungan - Kegagalan mematuhi dan menyelesaikan tuntutan di bawah notis statutori s. 218 Akta Syarikat 1965) [2013] 3 CLJ 457 [HC]

Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. Daya Timur Construction Sdn Bhd
Ravinthran Paramaguru JC
(Public Utilities; Tort - Trespass to land - Damage to underground cables - Cables damaged during piling renovation works - Liability for trespass) [2013] 3 CLJ 467 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

BANKING

Banks and banking business - Loan secured by charge - Vesting order - Whether valid - Whether s. 50(6) Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 and s. 420 National Land Code applicable
CIMB Bank Bhd v. Abdul Rafi Abdul Rajak & Ors
(Vernon Ong J) [2013] 3 CLJ 397 [HC]

BANKRUPTCY

Bankruptcy notice - Setting aside, application for - Bankruptcy notice issued more than six years after date of judgment - Whether leave required to issue bankruptcy notice - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 46 r. 2(1)(a) - Whether bankruptcy proceeding a writ of execution - Whether failure to obtain leave rendered bankruptcy notice invalid
AmBank (M) Bhd v. Tan Tem Son & Another Appeal
(Raus Sharif PCA, Zulkefli Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Hashim Yusoff, Ahmad Maarop, Sulong Matjeraie FCJJ) [2013] 3 CLJ 317 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Execution - Writ of execution - Whether bankruptcy proceeding a writ of execution - Whether leave required to issue bankruptcy notice more than six years after date of judgment - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 46 r. 2(1)(a)
AmBank (M) Bhd v. Tan Tem Son & Another Appeal
(Raus Sharif PCA, Zulkefli Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Hashim Yusoff, Ahmad Maarop, Sulong Matjeraie FCJJ) [2013] 3 CLJ 317 [FC]

Parties - Locus standi - Vesting order - Legal effect - Whether bank authorised to take over assets and liabilities pursuant to vesting order - Whether plaintiff had locus standi to commence action - Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989, s. 50(3)
CIMB Bank Bhd v. Abdul Rafi Abdul Rajak & Ors
(Vernon Ong J) [2013] 3 CLJ 397 [HC]

CONTRACT

Building contract - Claim for work done - Entitlement to balance sum owed for work done - Whether delay in completion - Whether failure to prove loss fatal
Geopancar Sdn Bhd v. Visage Engineering Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Malik Ishak, Hishamudin Mohd Yunus Balia Yusof Wahi JJCA) [2013] 3 CLJ 355 [CA]

Damages - Liquidated and ascertained damages - Whether proven by evidence - Whether pleaded - Whether trial judge erred in allowing damages
Geopancar Sdn Bhd v. Visage Engineering Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Malik Ishak, Hishamudin Mohd Yunus Balia Yusof Wahi JJCA) [2013] 3 CLJ 355 [CA]

Sale and purchase of land - Specific performance - Sale and purchase subjected to restriction in interest - Whether conditions complied within stipulated time - Whether sale and purchase agreement existed between parties - Whether enforceable - Whether doctrine of laches and acquiescence applied
Komoco Motors Pte Ltd v. Faridah Abdullah
(Vernon Ong J) [2013] 3 CLJ 440 [HC]

CRIMINAL LAW

Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Identification of assailants who caused death of deceased - Turnbull Guidelines - Whether Turnbull Guidelines on identification followed - Identification parade - Whether in accordance with standard and acceptable practice - Whether computerised facial composition had resemblance to appellant - Whether there was doubt as to accuracy of identity of assailant - Whether conviction safe
Jaferi Ipee v. PP
(Mohamed Apandi Ali, Anantham Kasinather JJCA, David Wong Dak Wah J) [2013] 3 CLJ 381 [CA]

LAND LAW

Indefeasibly of title and interest - Fraud - Discharge of charge - Insufficient and void instrument - Whether transfer liable to be set aside - Whether subsequent purchaser bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration - National Land Code s. 340(2)(b), (3)(a)
CIMB Bank Bhd v. Abdul Rafi Abdul Rajak & Ors
(Vernon Ong J) [2013] 3 CLJ 397 [HC]

LEGAL PROFESSION

Remuneration - Professional fees - Vetting of draft agreement - Professional fees for sum of RM1,346,625 - Failure to settle full payment of fees - Whether sum claimed was reasonable - Whether there existed fees agreement - Whether claim for work done exceeded scope of instruction - Whether RM70,000 a reasonable sum
HMJ Shaharom & KS Wee v. Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen
(Hamid Sultan Abu Backer J) [2013] 3 CLJ 423 [HC]

LIMITATION

Enforcement of judgment - Bankruptcy proceedings - Limitation period for bringing bankruptcy proceedings - Limitation Act 1953, s. 6(3)
AmBank (M) Bhd v. Tan Tem Son & Another Appeal
(Raus Sharif PCA, Zulkefli Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Hashim Yusoff, Ahmad Maarop, Sulong Matjeraie FCJJ) [2013] 3 CLJ 317 [FC]

PUBLIC UTILITIES

Telecommunications - Underground cables - Damage to underground cables during piling renovation works - Whether defendant negligent - Liability for trespass - Whether telecommunications provider could enter any land for purpose of erecting telecommunications facility - Duty of care - Whether breached - Whether inquiries made about underground cables - Claim for damages
Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. Daya Timur Construction Sdn Bhd
(Ravinthran Paramaguru JC) [2013] 3 CLJ 467 [HC]

TORT

Negligence - Breach of duty - Damage to underground cables - Cables damaged during piling renovation works - Whether defendant breached duty of care by not being reasonable and diligent - Whether inquiries made about underground cables - Whether defendant negligent - Claim for damages
Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. Daya Timur Construction Sdn Bhd
(Ravinthran Paramaguru JC) [2013] 3 CLJ 467 [HC]

Trespass to land - Damage to underground cables - Cables damaged during piling renovation works - Liability for trespass - Whether telecommunications provider could enter any land for purpose of erecting telecommunications facility - Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, s. 215
Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. Daya Timur Construction Sdn Bhd
(Ravinthran Paramaguru JC) [2013] 3 CLJ 467 [HC]

INDEKS PERKARA

PROSEDUR SIVIL

Afidavit - Afidavit menentusahkan petisyen penggulungan - Afidavit tidak ditarikhkan - Sama ada petisyen penggulungan sah - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980, A. 18 k. 19(b), (c) - Sama ada petisyen boleh dipertahankan
Paramount Link Sdn Bhd lwn. Rossington Consolidated Sdn Bhd
(Yaacob Md Sam H) [2013] 3 CLJ 457 [HC]

UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT

Penggulungan - Petisyen - Kegagalan mematuhi dan menyelesaikan tuntutan di bawah notis statutori s. 218 Akta Syarikat 1965 - Tuntutan bayaran tertunggak termasuk faedah bayaran lewat - Permohonan untuk membatalkan petisyen - Sama ada terdapat jumlah hutang yang dipertikaikan secara bona fide - Sama ada terdapat penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah untuk mengenakan tekanan dan menyebabkan kerugian yang tidak boleh dipampaskan - Sama ada petisyen boleh dipertahankan
Paramount Link Sdn Bhd lwn. Rossington Consolidated Sdn Bhd
(Yaacob Md Sam H) [2013] 3 CLJ 457 [HC]

ARTICLE

Legal Network Series Article

1. IN-HOUSE OR FIRM?
    REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE LAWYER*
[Read excerpt]
     by: ATHOL OPAS** [2013] 1 LNS(A) xxv

2. DOCKETING: COMPLETING CASE MANAGEMENT’S UNFINISHED REVOLUTION [Read excerpt]
     by: LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY MR* [2013] 1 LNS(A) xxvi

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Repealing
ACT 755 Finance Act 2013 11 January 2013 -Nil-
ACT 756 Traditional And Complementary Medicine Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 757 Strata Management Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 758 Financial Services Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 759 Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil-

Amending Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1448 Central Bank Of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2013 8 February 2013 [PU(B) 44/2013] ACT 701
ACT A1449 Industrial Designs (Amendment) Act 2013 1 July 2013 [PU(B) 86/2013] ACT 552
ACT A1450 Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2013 Not Yet In Force ACT 318
ACT A1451 Perbadanan Kemajuan Filem Nasional Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2013 1 April 2013 [PU(B) 89/2013] ACT 244
ACT A1452 Animals (Amendment) Act 2013 Not Yet In Force ACT 647

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(A) 144/2013 Customs (Values) (Crude Petroleum Oil) (No. 8) Order 2013 18 April 2013 18 April 2013 to 1 May 2013 ACT 235
PU(A) 145/2013 Digital Signature (Exemption) Order 2013 18 April 2013 1 January 2013 ACT 562
PU(A) 146/2013 Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Order 2013 22 April 2013 23 April 2013 to 22 April 2018 ACT 504
PU(A) 147/2013 Customs (Values) (Palm Oil) (No. 4) Order 2013 30 April 2013 1 May 2013 to 31 May 2013 ACT 235
PU(A) 148/2013 Customs (Values) (Palm Kernel) (No. 5) Order 2013 30 April 2013 1 May 2013 to 31 May 2013 ACT 235

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(B) 151/2013 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 58499 Mukim Kuala Lumpur 24 April 2013 25 April 2013 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 152/2013 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 58501 Mukim Kuala Lumpur 24 April 2013 25 April 2013 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 153/2013 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 135 Precinct 4 Putrajaya 24 April 2013 25 April 2013 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 154/2013 Polling Districts, Polling Centres And Polling Hours (Amendment) 25 April 2013 26 April 2013 ACT 19
PU(B) 155/2013 Polling Districts, Polling Centres And Polling Hours (Amendment) (No. 2) 25 April 2013 26 April 2013 ACT 19
[2013] 1 LNS(A) xxv AUSTRALIA

IN-HOUSE OR FIRM?
REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE LAWYER*

by

ATHOL OPAS**


Now more than ever the legal profession offers a diverse range of career options, including in-house legal practice as opposed to the traditional law firm legal practice. Having worked both in local and national private practice and also as an in-house lawyer in an Australian Government department, former Society President Athol Opas offers the following reflections on these alternatives.

So why go in-house? The choice may be driven by a desire to escape the rigours of billing budgets, time recording and marketing or to enjoy greater flexibility in working conditions. In-house lawyers can enjoy a never-ending supply of clients, direct access to senior management and an opportunity to develop in depth knowledge of the affairs of the client organisation. That can in turn place the in-house lawyer in an enviable position as trusted adviser.


. . .

* Published with kind permission of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. See Ethos No. 225 September 2012.

** Athol Opas, Immediate Past President.


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
[2013] 1 LNS(A) xxvi UNITED KINGDOM

DOCKETING: COMPLETING CASE MANAGEMENT’S UNFINISHED REVOLUTION

by

LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY MR*


(1) Introduction[1]

1. This morning I would like to discuss a number of proposals that arise out of the Jackson costs review. In particular I want to focus on docketing. Before doing so however it is appropriate to put the Jackson reforms, and the need to secure their success, into context.

2. Excess litigation cost has for too long blighted our civil justice system. It is a blight which undermines our ability to provide effective access to justice. If litigation costs are unaffordable, then, Lord Woolf observed in his Interim Access to Justice Report, it ‘constitutes a denial of access to justice[2]’. He was right. It does not however simply amount to a denial of access to justice. On its own that would be bad enough. But effective access to justice is an essential element of any democratic society committed to the rule of law. Where litigation costs deny effective access to justice, this will in due course undermine belief in, and commitment, to the rule of law, and that results in the undermining of our democracy and all its modern features - health, education, and welfare. In this country, we tend to take the rule of law and all it carries with it for granted, but as the great Judge Learned Hand put it, ‘If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.[3]’ Disproportionate costs improperly ration justice.


. . .

* Speech by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Ninth Lecture In Implementation Programme, Solicitors’ Costs Conference 2012 (London, 9 February 2012). Published with kind permission of the Judicial Communications Office, Judiciary of England and Wales (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lcj-speechvulnerable- witnesses-in-admin-of-criminal-justice-29092011.pdf ).


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Copyright ® 1997 - 2013 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: (603)-4270-5400

Content for Link 3
Content for Link 3
x