Lord Denning of Malaysia

Lord Denning was famed as a protector of woman, wifes, and the weaker parties, such as the Gouriet case, Eves v Eves, Gissing v Gissing, Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC,Re Jebb, et al.

Lord Denning had celebrated his 100th birthday on January 23, 1999, six weeks before his death. On that occasion, the Chairman of the Bar Council, Dan Brennan, Q.C., said that Lord Denning's unique gift to English law had been his ability to see the law as "a means to an end". He added that Lord Denning had "never unnecessarily allowed precedent or legal technicality to obscure what he believed to be the "interests of justice". He concluded that the profession had "lost a giant of British law making", and that "his like will not be seen again".

In order to grant them justice and fairness of which the settled law and judicial precedence might be directed to pronounce otherwise, Lord Denning creatively innovated new doctrines such as Promissory Estoppel, Proprietary Estoppel, Remedial Constructive Trust, and applied the European Conventions on Human Rights (ECHR) even before the icoming into force of Human Rights Act 1998 which was introduced by the Labour Party when they came into power.

Dr John Morris of Magdelen College, Oxford, a distinguished law teacher and writer describe Denning's decision in Re Jebb as "Palm Tree Justice". "By departing from the established rules of law the Court of Appeal seems to have usurped the function of the legislature. Morris view di have an impact on subsequent decisions in Sydall Castings Ltd.

Lord Denning inspired great affection among lawyers and it gave him pleasure to welcome new recruits to the profession. He was still Master of the Rolls at the age of 83.

But his 1982 book 'What Next in the Law' was his downfall. In it, he seemed to suggest some black people were unsuitable to serve on juries.

His remarks followed a trial over a riot in Bristol. Two jurors on the case threatened to sue him.

Lord Denning backed down and avoided further conflict by apologising. He then announced he would be retiring.

Even in retirement he remained busy. He continued writing, including the books Landmarks in Law and Leaves from my Library.

But his comments in retirement added nothing to his reputation. Another apology followed his claim that the Guildford Four, acquitted on appeal after being jailed for an IRA bombing, were probably guilty of murder all along.

His whole life was devoted to justice. His creativity was immense and his legacy will last for as long as the law itself.

In Denning's epitaph, he chose:

"Remembrance of me in good works, that is how I should like to be remembered."

Now, since the demise of Denning on Friday, March 5, 1999, at the age of 100, a new Lord Denning had emerged in Malaysia. He is Lord Gopal Sri Ram. He too, like Lord Denning, is in the Court of Appeal. The difference is Lord Denning was elevated to the House of Lords (the highest Appellate court in UK) and later was allowed to return to the Appeal Court as the Master of Rolls. On contrary, Gopal Sri Ram was never promoted to the Federal Court till today, although he was a much more senior judge than many of those in the Federal Court.

His various judgments in the Court of Appeal are reminescence of Denning's decisions.

SK.Remala Devi v S.Ganison

In this case, Sri Ram held that the Court of Appeal could not agree with the lower court judge who granted the properties to the ex-husband. "The judge carried out a juggling act in distributing the matrimonial properties.' The CA affirmed the High Court's decision which gave K.Remala Devi, the optical business and equal share in a condominium in Brickfields.

Sri Ram also said that Ganison, a civil servant with the Department of Environment, was involved in business. "It is illegal for a government servant to be involved in business," Sri Ram said.

Ganison said he wanted the Taman Ceupac house for himself and hald a share in the Taman Maluri house. To this, Sri Ram jested: "This is a monstrous suggestion and a kiss of death," questioning where would Remala Devi and her daughter stay.

"Is he going to give them an umbrella to seek shelter?"

Hazlinda Hamzah v Kumon Method of Learning Centre

I a daunting legal battle over a refund of a few thousand ringgit from a learning centre the Court of Appeal today reinstated a RM4,070 award to the 41-year-old woman, two years after the centre had taken her from the Consumer Claims Tribunal to the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Former RTM newscaster Hazlinda Hamzah argued her own case before the High Court judge but lost, and faced having to pay the centre’s legal cost of RM15,000. Undeterred, she took the fight to the next level, appealing to the second-highest court in the land, and it paid off.

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram ticked off the High Court judge for committing a serious error of law when she did not believe the contents of Hazlinda’s affidavit.

Sri Ram said it was time consumers were protected from the providers of goods and services. "One can get life from God but not money from traders," he said. He also praised Hazlinda as a civic-conscious citizen who refused to accept poor service.

Hazlinda’s battle began in 2003 when she went to the consumer tribunal to get a refund from the Kumon Method of Learning Centre in Subang Jaya. She had enrolled her children at the centre to improve their Mathematics skills. She discovered the centre had not followed the modules outlined in its brochures and tried to recover the fees she paid. But the centre refused to reimburse her. In April 2003, tribunal chairman Eddie Yeo Soon Chye ordered the centre to pay her RM3,870, half the fees she had paid, and RM200 in costs. The Kumon centre took the case to the High Court and got the tribunal’s award quashed. Hazlinda then found herself before the judge without counsel, struggling to deal with court procedures, applications and paperwork. After she lost, she filed her appeal. Luckily, the Consumers Association of Penang engaged a lawyer to represent her.

Ishak Shaari v DPP

A religious teacher seeking a review of a High Court decision on an outrage of modesty charge received a surprise from the Court of Appeal today. The court restored the more severe sentence of four years’ jail and two strokes of the rotan ordered by the magistrate’s court in January 2004.

Facts of the case: Ishak had taken the girl to a house where they prayed together. He then "solemnised" their "marriage" and attempted to have sex with the girl, but she resisted. Ishak then placed the Quran on her head, asking the girl to promise not to tell anyone what had happened.

This resulted in a stand-off between Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, counsel for Ishak Shaari, and the three-member Court of Appeal panel.

Defence counsel Muhammad Shafee had wanted the court to hear the appeal against a High Court decision on an appeal against a magistrate’s court sentence on Ishak for outraging the modesty of a 14-year-old girl.

Magistrate Norhasmiza Othman sentenced Ishak after he pleaded guilty to outraging the modesty of the girl at a house in Taman Sebang Baru, Pulau Sebang in Alor Gajah, Malacca, about 2pm on June 28, 1995. On appeal, the High Court reduced the jail sentence to two years on Nov 14 last year and waived the caning. Ishak then filed an application for leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal. Any party whose case originates from a magistrate’s court must get leave from the appellate court before an appeal is heard.

Sri Ram had ordered Ishak’s sentence, delivered against him on Jan 28, 2004, to begin from Jan 4 this year. He was on RM6,000 bail until today.

Shafee told the court he would not recognise the legality of today’s proceedings after the three judges shortened the appeal procedure and issued a surprise judgment. Shafee told judge Sri Ram that today’s proceedings were illegal as, he claimed, the court had acted beyond its jurisdiction in sentencing Ishak.

Sri Ram told Shafee he had recourse to the Federal Court on the matter. "You can try your luck (at the Federal Court). We feel it (the proceeding) is not an illegality," Sri Ram said when Shafee urged the court to make available a written judgment as soon as possible. The judge said the court must act where there was a manifest injustice. "You mean we should go home and fold our arms?" he asked Shafee.

Sri Ram said the court had the power to reverse or enhance the sentence of a lower court in the interest of justice. He said rules of the Court of Appeal provided for sentencing, although Ishak’s application was only to obtain leave to appeal.

Earlier, Shafee insisted he would not address the court when asked if he had anything to say on the reversal of the High Court ruling. Ishak, too, chose to remain silent when asked the same question. "It is your’s and the accused’s constitutional right not to say anything," Sri Ram said.

Sri Ram said the court agreed with the public prosecutor’s stand on the case as cases of this nature were very serious. He said Ishak had been entrusted with a young girl but had breached that trust in the basest of terms. "He took advantage of her. An attempt was made to have sexual intercourse with her," he said. He said the girl was asked to swear by the Quran not to tell anyone of the incident. "The deed performed is of a twisted and perverted mind," he said, adding that Ishak used religion to satisfy his carnal desire.

Sri Ram said to Ishak: "People like you are serpents in the lawn of justice," he said, adding that justice should not tolerate this type of act.

The Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram rebuked the Insolvency department for failing to issue a sanction to Perikanan LKPP Fort Sdn Bhd since February 2003.The company, which had been liquidated, needed the sanction to appeal against a suit by its lenders.

Insolvency Department Director-general Halijah Abbas has this to say:

"We admit that the department is short of qualified staff."

Click the links:

Metramac Case: Collaboration to Defraud

UEM-MoF Conspiracy Theory


Daim Vinci Code

Contempt of Court?