Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Use of hansard

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2021

AJS JMH

Citation

02(i)-77-11/2020(W),02(i)-82-12-2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-77-11/2020(W),02(i)-82-12-2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 3(3) LRMDA must be read purposively and in context under Interpretation Act s17A such that the Act's monogamous statutory framework for non-Muslims does not apply to Muslims, but this does not prevent the joinder of a Muslim third party who is not privy to the non‑Muslim marriage where joinder is a procedural step to prove adultery; consequently section 3(3) does not bar naming a Muslim co‑respondent in a judicial separation petition in these circumstances.
30 Jun 2021

1. ) ABDUL HAKIM BIN MOHAMAD & 1101 OTHERS (untuk Saman Pemula No. WA-24NCvC-1354-07/2019) 2. ) AFIQAH BT MOHAMAD & 133 OTHERS (untuk Saman Pemula No. WA-24NCvC-2218-10/2019) PR1MA CORPORATION MALAYSIA (“PR1MA”)

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1354-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1354-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The PR1MA Act does not restrict PR1MA from determining sale prices or granting discounts on initial sales; PR1MA possesses express commercial powers under the Act and, in any event, implied powers under the Interpretation Acts to determine prices and provide rebates; plaintiffs failed to establish a legitimate expectation or statutory prohibition; therefore both Originating Summons were dismissed.