Name: Putri Nurhasya Hureen Binti Zarimi STUDENT ID NO: 62214120283 Course: Business Law/Ib10 Introduction To Law: Malaysian Legal System

NAME: PUTRI NURHASYA HUREEN BINTI ZARIMI
STUDENT ID NO: 62214120283

COURSE: BUSINESS LAW/IB10
INTRODUCTION TO LAW: MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

BACHELOR
Answer for multiple choices questions
1. B
2. C
3. B
4. B
5. B
6. B
7. B
8. B
9. D
10. D
11. A
12. A
13. A
14. D
15. D
16. A
17. C
18. B
19. A
20. D
21. A
22. A
23. A
24. B
25. B
26. A
27. B
28. B
29. D
30. C
31. D
32. A
33. D
34. C
35. D
36. D
37. D
38. D
39. A
40. A
41. D
42. D
43. B
44. A
45. A
46. C
47. A
48. D
49. D
50. D
51. Answer for Essay question.
The aim of this study is to describe a few situations where judges make decisions and laws.
At the moment, a judge's job is to follow Parliament's laws, not to make law. Judges must
specifically specify and apply any law enacted by the parliament in accordance with the
cases. While deciding on a lawsuit, a judge must follow the precedent set by higher courts in
the situation and related situations, as this would ensure that the party involved in the case
is treated fairly and not unfairly, as they are aware. Judges also developed different laws,
such as the ad tort law on contracts or other more important developments, such as the
criminalization of negligence.
In 1345, an English lawyer argued with the judge: "I'm not sure what the law is. I hope you
can do what we did because if you can't, we won't be able to. "This is the will of the
Justices," said Judge Hillary. No, the law is the truth "According to Chief Justice Stonore. The
case is now pending in the courts. The question of how judges take their part in making laws,
whether they make or declare a law, is presently a source of consternation. Judges are
believed to be able to create new rules in "serious situations." Where it comes to the judge's
role, a rule is established that is especially important in two areas: the creation of common
law and the interpretation of the statute.
The courts cannot rule or create laws outside of the legislator's jurisdiction; instead, they
must be bound by their jurisdictions to follow the governing rules established by them
before the legislature acts to enforce the statute. Their means must be both high and low in
order to shape the law. "Court democracy" does not become a "court adventure," which
instead leads a judge to seek his own version of justice, breaking the rules. The courts must
be sure that constitutional policies and procedures such as equality, socioeconomic justice, a
liberal perspective, and recognition of human rights are successful in promoting a greater
quality of life, among other things. Donoghue V Stephenson is the nearest example of the
situation (Judges do make law). It's referred to as "Case Law" or "Made Law Judge." On a
regular basis, the Court of Appeal makes law; its decisions become laws, which promotes
flexibility and the democratic judicial process in order to eradicate inequality and unfair
decisions. The act cannot be changed in its current form. The act cannot be revised in its
current form. Because of the statute on the laws of law, judges cannot interfere with the law
on suicide or killing (terminally ill people are assisted to die), and only the legislature, which
makes the law and therefore is the most powerful lawmaker, can change this reality.
Since parliament cannot specify or describe any method or term in a statute, the judge must
understand the statute in such a manner that it can be applied in court. For example,
Bennion is chastised in the DPP's case against Jones (2009), which involved a roadshow near
Stonehenge. In that case, the Lords considered the rule that the public had unrestricted
access to the highway for the purposes of walking, passing, and re-passing. The House of
Lords proclaimed in Jones that the statute put unrealistic and unjustified restrictions on
everyday operation and that the highway is open to the public for legal purposes.
Then, in order to fill in the differences, there will be instances where no explicit law occurs.
For example, although they disagreed with EU law, there was no regulation pertaining to UK
rules. Through decisions in EU courts, the House of Lords developed a new doctrine that
would allow the constitution to resolve the issue without abandoning the concept of
legislative supremacy in its entirety. Developing a revolutionary philosophy that leads to
constitutional instability, resulting in a dramatic shift in the UK Constitution and the
European Court of Justice. In this situation, judges must be very cautious when making or
modifying decisions.
In conclusion, there's also common law. There are some cases where there is no law in
place. In this situation, judges' rulings based on ongoing trials are influenced by previous
cases in a process known as judicial proceedings. For example, The Rylands v Fletcher law,
and the Transco cause fusion. The House of Lords has been able to reverse its previous court
proceedings since 1966, with the notable exception of R v R. (not A v A). In the case of R v
Ahluwalia, the woman was targeted by her husband's physical and emotional abuses as well
as aggressive attacks. She couldn't sleep one night after getting angry again and worrying
about her husband's behavior, so she went downstairs and poured gasoline into a bucket,
setting fire to her husband's dorm. While she didn't want to kill just to make him miserable,
he died of his wounds. Provocation was her second line of defense, focusing on the
mistreatment she had faced since her marriage, but she was found guilty of murder. After
that, an appeal was filed. Lord Denning's "equity reform" " Judges create law on a daily
basis, despite the fact that saying so is almost heretical "The development of the law by the
courts is mentioned in Lord Denning's common quote, but not every time the law is created,
changed, or reformed. Judges also mention the creation or modification of laws in very
challenging situations, but the statute cannot be rewritten to the Court's specifications. The
law must be defined and reformed in accordance with the appropriate principles and
regulatory steps.
Furthermore, there are few situations where the differences had to be filled, such as DPP v
JONES. The prosecutors, on the other hand, find laws that are almost heretical to say so. As a
result, the judges upheld the proclaimed and enacted law. "While judges have traditionally
thought of themselves as announcing or not establishing laws, and frequently argue that
legislation is a legislative prerogative, there are many ways in which they are clearly
behaving," says the source.
Finally, there is concern that judges merely take rights for which they have no
statutory authority during the decision-making process of legislation, and that judges should
not extend their role as legislators to these controversial fields that are specifically reserved
for the formal law making bodies of the legislature.

Name: Putri Nurhasya Hureen Binti Zarimi STUDENT ID NO: 62214120283 Course: Business Law/Ib10 Introduction To Law: Malaysian Legal System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Name: Putri Nurhasya Hureen Binti Zarimi STUDENT ID NO: 62214120283 Course: Business Law/Ib10 Introduction To Law: Malaysian Legal System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Name: Putri Nurhasya Hureen Binti Zarimi STUDENT ID NO: 62214120283 Course: Business Law/Ib10 Introduction To Law: Malaysian Legal System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAME: PUTRI NURHASYA HUREEN BINTI ZARIMI

STUDENT ID NO: 62214120283

INTRODUCTION TO LAW: MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

Answer for multiple choices questions

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.