High Court of Justice

Explain the hierarchy of courts in Malaysia. Discuss in details. Law is defined as any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation. It is the governmental response to society 's need for both regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience. A statute, ordinance, or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree/judgement without any democratic process

specialised in one area of law. The head of the judiciary is the Lord Chief Justice. When considering judges the first point is that there is a marked difference between what are we called superior judges and inferior judges. Superior

Exploring the Court System This assignment is based upon two court visits, one to a criminal (Magistrate’s court of Sunderland) and one to a civil (County court of Newcastle) court. The assignment is apparently significant in terms of its relevance to the general study and understanding of the underlying principles and theoretical concepts of the English legal system and the environment in which it operates, and in terms of formation of argumentative opinion on the

Precedent is based on stare decisis, stand by what is decided. Every court is bound to follow any decisions made by a court above it in the hierarchy and appeal courts are generally bound by their own decisions, if the facts are similar. In addition, most appeal courts are generally bound by their own previous decisions. For example, both the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court of the High Court are usually bound by their own previous decisions. Judges must follow the ratio decidendi of

the civil court system, the small claims track, the fast track and the multi-track. These three tracks were formed under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to make it easier to deal with cases of different complexity. The Act has put in place a series of checks to “sort” the cases according to size of case, the complexity of the case and the size of the compensation asked for. This is achieved through a questionnaire completed by the parties. Small Claim courts: Cases in the small claims court are heard

The court system in England and Wales originated during the Anglo - Saxon period. Back then local men gathered in Moot Courts, deciding on issues in line with local customs. Piece by piece the system became more sophisticated, which can be seen clearly after a brief overview on its evolution and evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages. After the Norman Conquest, certain cases were brought before the King (Coram Rege in Latin), later the King started to delegate the power to administer Royal

are held in different courts, this is because there is a significant distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. Crimes are considered to be a type of wrongdoing, however civil wrongs tend to have only an impact on the parties involved in the case. For example: a breach of contract. Where as criminal wrongs tend to have an impact on society itself. For example: a murder, theft or rape. Criminal law is dealt with in the Magistrates court and if very serious

The court system in England and Wales means a thousand years of history and development throughout different political and social climates. This essay will provide a brief history of this evolution and evaluation of some advantages and disadvantages of a modern jury system. According to The Open University (2014, section 10.1), under Anglo-Saxon domination all disputes were resolved in local courts called ‘moots’. These courts later developed and became Magistrates’ Courts, still keeping their

Intention to Create Legal Relations; Rebuttable Presumptions and Ermogenous. When determining ‘intention to create legal relations’ in contract law, courts traditionally held the objective rebuttable presumption that commercial parties intended to create legal relations and domestic parties did not. This is an assumption made by the court that is deemed to be true unless proven to the contrary. Furthermore this meant that in family cases the onus of proof was on the plaintiff to rebut the presumption

interested in law when the parish priest of our local church in Malaysia was detained and charged in court for taking part in a candlelight vigil calling for the abolition of the much dreaded Internal Security Act that allowed detention without trial. He was later acquitted and despite further attempts by the prosecutors to appeal against his acquittal, the appeal was not allowed by the High Court. This one episode had a profound impact that unsettled my hitherto ‘couldn’t care less’ teenage life