Cases study for constitution
[1977] 2 MLJ 187
LOH KOOI CHOON v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
In this case the appellant had been arrested and detained under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment. The appellant had not been produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest. He claimed damages but it was held that no action could be brought against the police officer as he was acting in compliance with a warrant issued by a competent authority. The appellant appealed but before the appeal was heard the Federal Constitution was amended by Act A354/76 which provided in effect that Article 5(4) of the Constitution shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence and that this amendment shall have effect from Merdeka Day. It was argued that the amendment was unconstitutional.
RETHANA v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
[1984] 2 MLJ 52
In this case the applicant was injured while working in a factory and lost her thumb and three fingers. Under the provisions of the Employees Social Security Act, 1969 she belonged to a class of employees who were insured against such accidents and accordingly she was awarded a benefit of $ 1.50 per day giving her a sum of about $ 1,026 over a period of two years. She refused to accept the award contending that it was unconstitutional in that if she were not barred by the Act to sue her employees for negligence she could expect to get much higher damages. She applied to a Judge of the Federal Court for leave to commence proceedings in the Federal Court for a declaration that the Act was inconsistent with various provisions of the Constitution and further for a declaration that the Act is void to the extent of such inconsistencies.
PHANG CHIN HOCK v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (NO 2)
[1980] 1 MLJ 213
In this case the appellant applied by motion for leave to appeal to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong against the judgment of the Federal Court, [See supra, p. 70.] dismissing his
LOH KOOI CHOON v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
In this case the appellant had been arrested and detained under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment. The appellant had not been produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest. He claimed damages but it was held that no action could be brought against the police officer as he was acting in compliance with a warrant issued by a competent authority. The appellant appealed but before the appeal was heard the Federal Constitution was amended by Act A354/76 which provided in effect that Article 5(4) of the Constitution shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence and that this amendment shall have effect from Merdeka Day. It was argued that the amendment was unconstitutional.
RETHANA v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
[1984] 2 MLJ 52
In this case the applicant was injured while working in a factory and lost her thumb and three fingers. Under the provisions of the Employees Social Security Act, 1969 she belonged to a class of employees who were insured against such accidents and accordingly she was awarded a benefit of $ 1.50 per day giving her a sum of about $ 1,026 over a period of two years. She refused to accept the award contending that it was unconstitutional in that if she were not barred by the Act to sue her employees for negligence she could expect to get much higher damages. She applied to a Judge of the Federal Court for leave to commence proceedings in the Federal Court for a declaration that the Act was inconsistent with various provisions of the Constitution and further for a declaration that the Act is void to the extent of such inconsistencies.
PHANG CHIN HOCK v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (NO 2)
[1980] 1 MLJ 213
In this case the appellant applied by motion for leave to appeal to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong against the judgment of the Federal Court, [See supra, p. 70.] dismissing his