INTRODUCTION

The Sources of Malaysian Law

Malaysian law can classify into written and unwritten law. A reference to the unwritten law
does not mean that the law is literally unwritten. It is a convenient reference to that portion of
Malaysian law which is not enacted by the legislature (Parliament and State Assemblies) and
which is not found in the constitution, both federal and state. This un-enacted law is found in
cases decided by the courts and local customs that have legal force, namely, the whole of nonstatutory laws. Written law, on the other hand, refers to the embodied in the Federal and State
Constitutions and in a code or a statute, including subsidiary or delegated legislation.
Malaysian written law consists of the following:
a) Federal Constitution
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of Malaysia. The 1957
Constitution of the Federation of Malaya is the basis of this document. It establishes Malaysia as
a constitutional monarchy having the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of State whose
rolesare largely ceremonial. It provides for the establishment and the organization of three main
branches of the government: the bicameral legislative branch called the Parliament, which
consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate; the executive branch led by the Prime
Minister and consists of Cabinet Ministers; and the judicial branch headed by the Federal Court.
b) State Constitution
Malaysia has 14 states and each state has its own state constitution. Johor was the first
state to have a written constitution granted by Sultan Abu Bakar in1895.All state constitutions
must be harmonious with the Federal Constitution. All state must include Essential Provisions
in their respective constitution.
c) Legislation
Legislation or "statutory law" is law which has been enacted by a legislature or
other governing body, or the process of making it. (Another source of law is judge-made law
or case law.) Before an item of legislation becomes law it may be known as a bill, and may be
broadly referred to as "legislation" while it remains under consideration to distinguish it from
other business. Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, to authorize, to proscribe, to
provide (funds), to sanction, to grant, to declare or to restrict.
d) Subsidiary Legislation
Colloquially known as anak-anak undang (children of the law).These are normally found
in the Government Gazette, but unfortunally, they are not easily accessible to the public and even
if available, it is difficult to keep abreast of changes. Computer technology may eventually

alleviate this problem but the process of putting them into a data base is both expensive and time
consuming but this is now almost complete in relation to federal statutes.
e) Ordinances
Known as extraordinary laws can be made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong (King of the
Federation) during a period of emergency proclaimed in accordance with article 150 of the
Federation Constitution. During the operation of the emergency, if the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong
is satisfied that certain circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate
action, he may promulgate such ordinances as circumstances appear to him to require.[1]
The unwritten law of Malaysia comprises the following;
a) English Common Law
English law is the legal system of England, and is the basis of common law legal systems
used in most Commonwealth countries. English Law was introduced in Malay states, Sabah and
Sarawak directly and indirectly. A Malaysian court has a choice whether to apply the English
Law or not. When the English law is applied, it becomes the local law.
b) Judicial Precedents
The doctrine of judicial precedent is concerned with the importance of case law in
Malaysian system. It is really the lawyers term for legal experience. All tend to repeat things
have done before: law is essentially no different. If one case has decided a point of law then it is
logical that that solution will be looked at in the future.
c) Customs of local inhabitants
There is no customary law of general application in Malaysia. Custom rooted from the
ancient custom of the people. It is the customs which are accepted as binding and enforceable by
the court. In Malay Adat comprises of Adat Perpatih and Adat Temenggung. Adat Perpatih
applies in Negeri Sembilan and some part of Naning in Melaka whereas Adat Temenggung
applies to the rest of Malay Peninsular. The Chinese Customary Law in the Straits Settlement
and Malay States were the creation of the courts. The development of Hindu Customary Law
was the extension and adaptation of the Hindu Customary Law in India.
d) Islamic Law
A major source of Malaysian law but it is applicable only to Muslims, regardless of race. It
is administered by a separate system of state Syariah Courts except in the Federal Territories of
Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan which have their own.

PART 1 :
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT SYSTEM
1.1 Definition
Judicial is a power which enforced the laws made by first branch.[2] A precedent is
commonly defined as a judgment or decision of a court of law cited as an authority for the legal
principle embodied in its decision.[3]
Judicial precedent is a judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a
similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its
decision. The common law has developed by broadening down from precedent to precedent.
A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making.
This practice of following precedent is also known as stare decisis [4] and by which precedents
are authoritative and binding and must be followed.
Judicial precedent is an important source of English law as an original precedent is one
which creates and applies a new rule. However, the later decision, especially of the higher courts,
can have number of effect upon precedents. In particular, they may be:
Reversed: where on appeal in the same case the decision is reversed, the initial decision will

cease to have any effect.

Overruled: where in a later case a higher court decides that the first case was wrongly decided.
A refused to follow: this arises where a court, not bound by the decision, cannot overrule it but

does not wish to follow it so it simply refuses to follow the earlier decision.
Distinguished: where an earlier case is rejected as authority, either because the material facts

differ or because the statement of law in previous case is too narrow to be properly applied to
new sets of facts.
Explained: a judge may seek to interpret an earlier decision before applying it or distinguishing
it, thus the effect of earlier case is varied in circumstances of the present case.
Lord Gardiner LC, in a practice statement on behalf of himself and Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary, restated in 1966 the doctrine, which has equal application in Malaysia.
Their Lordship regard to use of precedent as an indispensible foundation upon which to decide what is the
law and its application to individual cases. Its provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can
rely in the conduct of their affairs as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules.[5]

A reminder that the doctrine must also be strictly observed in Malaysia was delivered by
Federal Judge, Justice Chang Min Tat, when he said:
It is . necessary to reaffirm the doctrine of stare decisis which the Federal Court accepts unreservedly
and which it expects the High Court and other inferior courts in common law system such as ours to follows
similarity.[6]

1.2 History of The Concept

Precedent that is decision in previous similar cases, have for many hundreds of years been
important in the development in English Law, but until the latter part of nineteenth century were
only persuasive that is a judge would be influenced by the decision I a previous case, but did not
consider himself bound by it.
The modern doctrine of precedent, under which a judge is bound by the decision in a
previous case, even if he considers it to be unjust or illogical, is of comparatively modern origin.
In the early days of common law, judges considered that their judgments was merely
declaratory, common law was based on general custom, and they were merely enunciating what
that custom was. This attitude left no room for the development of a doctrine of precedent. In
every event, there was no method of recording judgment fully and accurately.
The development of printing and the improvement in the standards of reporting meant that
from sixteen century it has been accepted that must be regard must be paid to previous decisions
and that it was not for the courts to rejected them and abandon all analogy to them. Later in the
nineteen century two events occurred which laid the groundwork for the establishment of the
system of binding precedents such as in 1865, the Council of Law Reporting was created, and
this ensured that for the future there would be a consistent and reliable system of reporting cases.
There had been many earlier series the reports, but their reliability varied considerably in the
whole system of courts was reorganized by the Judicature Acts 1873-1875 and the Appellate
Jurisdiction Acts 1876, and this made easier the task of recognizing the hierarchy of court.

PART 2 :
ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN MALAYSIA
2.1 How does The Doctrine of Precedent Work
Several processes are necessary in forming a judicial decision. When a case is brought
before the court, the first thing to be established is the facts of the case. These will be decided by
the presiding judge and in countries where a jury is empanelled, the facts will be determined by
the jury. Once the facts are established, the judge will apply the law to determine which litigant
should succeed. It is at this stage that the doctrine of precedent will control his or her decision.
Given the total abolition of trial by jury in Malaysia, both questions of fact and law will be
decided by the judge.
In coming to a decision as to which precedent is binding, the judge is influenced by two
main factors, namely :
a) The origin of the precedent; to be binding, a precedent must originate from court of appropriate
rank in the same hierarchy.
b) The contents of the precedent that is the ratio decidendi which is the legal reasoning of the
precedent that is binding.
The concept of ratio decidendi is not an easy one to gasp. Suppose A bought a bottle of
ginger ale, drank it and suffered diarrhoea and other illness as a result of the presence of a
decomposed snail in the bottle. The person successfully sued the manufacturer for negligence in
the manufacture of the product. In a subsequent case, X bought clothes from another shop, wore
them and suffered dermatitis and other related skin problems owing to the presence of certain
chemicals in the clothes. The court in the latter case decided to apply the legal principle
established in the different but nevertheless, there is a common element justifying the application
of the same rule. That rule, which is the ratio of the earlier case, is constant. It may be stated as
follows:
A manufacture of product owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care in the
manufacture of products. If a consumer is injured as a result of the negligent act of the
manufacture, the latter is liable. In fact, that principle was established in the celebrated case
ofDonoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 which is commonly referred to as the Snail in the
Bottlecase.
Selection of the relevant or material fact is important as it determines the breadth of a legal
principle. For instance, could the case of the negligent drink manufacturer be a precedent for a
case in which careless advice was given by a bank to a customer and which caused such person
financial loss rather than personal injury? In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners
Ltd [1964] AC 465, the court did extend the rule to the situation just described. It is clear that
subsequent applications of the rule established in Donoghue v Stevenson have not limited the

ratio to a manufacture of drinks or clothes. It has come a long way from the snail in the bottle.
The case is now seen as a binding authority for a very broad general principle and the facts raise
to a high level of generality. Negligently leaving a snail in a bottle of ginger beer and causing injury to a
woman has now developed into negligently performing any act on which some person relies and suffers loss or
damages as a result.

Ultimate, the width of a precedent will be determined by a later court confronted with the
task of applying a precedent to a new set of facts. Precedent, once established, retain their
authority no matter how old they are unless they are overruled by a higher court in a subsequent
case or overturned by legislative action.
In the course of a judgment, a judge may express an opinion on a question of law not
directly relevant to the case before him. His opinion is an obiter dictum or obiter dicta in the
plural. It is commonly abbreviated obiter or dicta. This legal expression means things
said by the way. The obiter dictum is not part of the ratio. Accordingly, it is strictly not binding
on courts although it may have very high persuasive authority, particularly if it originates from a
higher court such as the Federal Court.
The theoretical differences between the ratio and obiter may appear to be simple. In
practice, it is very difficult to distinguish between them. One needs training and experience in the
law to tell the difference, and even then, the extent of its application is arguable. Judges are not
always helpful in this regard. They do not indicate which is the ratio or dicta of a judgment. In
an appellate court where three or more judges decide, they may give different reasons for coming
to the same decision. Legal opinions often differ. Consequently, lawyers may venture an opinion
based on their training and knowledge of the law. This situation does result in uncertainly and it
is not satisfactory. It is an imperfect system. People ought to be able to know what the law is, so
they can go on with their activities and organise their affairs accordingly. No wander the
American realists have taken up a statement made in jest by Lord Asquith when asked to
distinguish a ratio from a dictum. He said:
The rule is simple, if you agree with the other bloke you say it is part of the ratio: if you dont you say it
is obiter dictum, with the implication that he is a congenital idiot

2.2 Hierarchy of Precedents

Two condition have to be satisfied before the doctrine of Stare Decisis can be established in
court. Firstly, there must be also a settled judicial hierarchy for until then it cannot be known.
The structure of this hierarchy must be considered first.
Committee of the Privy Council
Long after the Union Jack had been lowered in the colonies and possessions, the Privy
Council continued to sit in England as the final court of appeals of many Commonwealth
countries including Malaysia. Judicial appeals to this august body had been a part of the colonial
judicial system. When the British colonial empire was greatly expanded, it became necessary to

make adequate provisions for the determination of appeals from the colonies and possessions.
Consequently, in 1833, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was reorganized to
accommodate such appeals.
Its beginning was modest, but it quickly acquired a stature and respect among common
law lawyers for the quality of decisions. The first reported decision to the Privy Council from
Malaysia emanated from Straits Settlements in the case of Yeap Cheah Neo v Ong Cheng
Neo[1875] LR 6 PC 381. In respect of the Malay States, its establishment followed the creation
of the Residential system when the territories became British protectorates. In negotiations
towards independence for Malay, it was agreed that a Commonwealth Constitutional
Commission should be appointed to make recommendations for a constitution for the new
nation. Headed by Lord Reid, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, the Commission recommended,
inter alia, that the Judicial Committee should continue to hear appeals from local court. However,
it recognized that existing procedure governing appeals was not appropriate for an independent
country with its own monarch, given that a decision of the Privy Council took the form of advice
to the British monarch. In the event, article 131(1) of the Federal Constitution was included to
empower the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to make arrangements with Her Majesty for the reference
to the Privy Council of appeals from the Federal Court. In that arrangement, appeals would be
made to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong who referred them to the Privy Council. A decision of the
Privy Council took the form of advice to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong who would give effect to
it.
Appeals on criminal and constitutional matters were not permitted from 1 January, 1978
and civil matters from 1 January, 1985. These changes were effected through the Courts of
Judicature ( Amendment ) Act 1976 and the Constitution ( Amendment ) Act 1983. The Privy
Council is now a defunct court in relation to Malaysia, and the weight to be given to its previous
decisions has become a matter for Malaysian courts to decide. The Federal Court, being the
ultimate appellate court of the land, possesses the authority to take an approach different from
that taken by lower courts. It may decide to depart from the previous decision of the Privy
Council in a particular case whereas lower court may feel bound by past decisions until the
Federal Court has spoken otherwise. The ability to depart from previous binding decisions of the
Privy Council is consistent with the sovereign status of Malaysia and the Federal Court as its
highest court.
In practical application, the situation is the best explained by dividing the status of the
Privy Council decisions into two periods; pre-abolition and post-abolition. Prior to its abolition,
its decisions were binding on the Malaysian court in the following circumstances:
(1) If the law decided was given on appeal from Malaysia; or
(2) If the decision was given on appeal from another Commonwealth country, the law was pari
material or similar to that of Malaysia.

In the past, decisions of the Privy Council given on appeal from Malaysia prior to its
abolition were absolutely binding on Malaysian courts.
In the area of conflict between a decision of the Privy Council and that of the House of
Lords, the view had always been that the decision of the former would prevail. When the
opposite view was canvassed by counsel in a caes before Justice Abdoolcader in the High Court,
it was quickly dismissed with the following statement:
Mr Mohideen in his final reply submits that the decision of the Privy Council in Colonial Bank of
Australasia v Willan [1874] LR 5 PC 417 now must be considered as qualified by Animinic Ltd v Foreign
Compensation Commision [1969] 2 AC 147. I am astounded, to stay the least, at the proposition so flagrantly flung
in the face of the decision of the House Lord, let alone obiter dicta at that can be held to qualify, undermine or
indeed virtually purport to overrule a decision of the Privy Council..
The precedent laid down and established by the Privy Council in Colonial Bank of Australasia v
Willan[1874] LR 5 PC 417 can be but a spring of mature wisdom from which I am bound to and must necessarily
drink, but that apart, I respectfully agree with the ratio decidendi in that decision in its entirety.

It may be appropriate at this juncture to state that the House of Lords decisions, being a
part of the common law, may still be a source of Malaysian law by virtue of section 3(a), (b) and
(c) of the Civil Law Act 1956 subject, of course, to the various conditions provided in the same
section, for instance suitability to local circumstance.
The situation is altered with the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council from 1 January,
1985. As previously stated, the current Federal Court (and before it, the Supreme Court) is free to
depart from the previous decisions of the Privy Council, regardless whether they were on appeal
from Malaysia or other countries where the law was pari material although it is unlikely to do so
lightly. Whether it will do so in a particular case is a matter for the Federal Court to determine.
In respect of courts below the level of the Federal Court, they are bound to follow previous
decisions of the Privy Council unless they have become inconsistent with a decision of the
Federal Court (or the defunct Supreme Court) or they have been modified by legislation. Past
decisions of the Privy Council that were binding have become part of Malaysian jurisprudence,
and remain so unless altered by a competent authority.
The situation in Malaysia in regard to Privy Council decisions is not much different from
the same in Australia where appeals to that body were also progressively removed, the process,
began in 1968 and fully accomplished in 1986. In Viro v R [1978] 141 CLR 88, the Australian
High Court, which is the highest court, held that it was no longer bound by Privy Council
decisions, regardless whether they were given before or after the abolition of appeals to the Privy
Council.
The federal court
The federal court is the final court of appeal. As the highest court in Malaysia, it is unclear
whether it will hold itself bounds by its and prior decisions, but if it follows the practice of

highest court in most other Commonwealth jurisdictions, its expected that it will retain a right of
depart from its own prior decisions in appropriate cases.
In Arulpgasan a/l Sandaraju v Public persecutor [1997] 1 MLJ 1, the Federal Court
departed from its previous decision on the issue of burden proof on the grounds that it had
misunderstood the ratio of previous case. However, any departure will be sparing in appropriate
circumstances given the need for certainty. In Tunde Apatria v Public Prosecutor [2001] 1 MLJ
259, the Federal Court rejected the prosecutions submission to depart from an earlier decision.
Subject to the foregoing paragraph, in respect of decisions of the defunct Supreme Court
(established 1 January, 1985) which it replaced, in most cases it will continue to follow its
decisions, including that of it predecessor, the defunct of Federal Court of Malaysia. The Federal
Court of old replaced by the Supreme Court on 1 January, 1985, which was set up when appeals
in civil cases to the Privy Council were abolished.[7] The highest court has been reconstituted
several times, causing in its wake, a degree of confusion as to the binding force of previous
decisions.
In the application of the doctrine of the precedents, decisions of the Federal Court, like the
Supreme Court before it and the defunct Federal Court before the letter, are binding on all lower
courts. This is by virtue of the fact that it is the highest court.
The question of horizontal stare decisis is less than clear. If pronouncements of the defunct
Supreme Court are to be taken as a guide, it appears that decisions given in its appellate role
when sitting as a constitutional court will be binding.. In its other appellate roles, judicial view
differ. From the judicial pronouncements, the position appears to be that it will depart from
previous decision, if necessary.
The old Federal Court of Malaysia had regarded itself as bound by its own decisions in civil
cases, subject to exceptions to be elaborated upon later in this part, is well settled
Three exceptions to the general principle were elaborated upon in Lord Greenes
judgement in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd, summarised as follows. First, when there is a
conflict of decisions, the court is entitled to decide which of the two conflicting decisions of its
own it will follow. Secondly, the court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which,
though not expressly overruled, cannot stand up with a decision of the House of Lords. Thirdly,
it is not bound to follow a decision given per incuriam, that is, were the court has failed to take
into account relevant legal principle or statute. Per incuriam is the Latin expression for through
want of care or through inadvertence or by mistake.
The High Courts
The High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Borneo have equal and co-ordinate
jurisdiction. The position of a judge of the High Court in England with regard to the doctrine
ofstare decisis.

Until the mid sixties the court in this country seems to have been bound by decisions of a
co-ordinate court. In P.N. Mohammad Ibrahim v. Yap Chin Hock & Anor, the judge was Foong &
Ors. v. Chop Thong Cheong, being a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Again
inSundralingam v. Ramanatham Chettiar, MacIntyre J. relying on the authority of Muhammad
Ibrahims case, held himself bound by the decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. On
further appeal to the Federal Court, the decision of the trial magistrate which was upheld by
MacIntyre J. was reversed. In the cause of his judgement Azmi C.J. said:
In his judgement MacIntyre J, expressed the view that he was bound to follow the decision of Storr J, . . being a
decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction sitting on appeal.

On this question my view is that, he may properly follow the practice in England where a High
Court Judge, though he cannot over-rule one of his brethen, could disapproved his decision and
decline to follow him.
Ong F.J. has this to say:
Each court, of course, is bound by the decision of courts above it, but individual judges are not bound by each
others decision, although judicial coursety naturally requires that they do not lightly dissent from the considered
opinion of their brethren.

1234-

On the authority of Sundralingams case, the practice of stare decisis in Malaysia Courts
can be summed up in the following propositions:
Each court is bound by the decision of courts above it.
Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are not bound by each others decisions.
Only decisions of the High Court and above are quotable as law.
The Malaysian practise is similar to that of England.
Subordinate Court
The Session Court and Magistrates Court are subordinate courts. They are bound by
precedents laid down by the superior courts but their own decisions are not binding on any court,
given their lack of capacity to established binding precedent.

PART 3 :
EXAMPLES THE CASES AND METHOD WITH THE JUDGEMENT
3.1 Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. vs. Heller & Partners Ltd.
3.2 Candler vs. Crane , Crismas & Co.
3.3 Australian Conservation Foundation Incorprated vs. The Commonwealth of Australia &
Others
3.4 Donoghue vs. Stevenson

CONCLUSION : EFFECTS
Advantages of Binding Precedents
1. Consistency
This refers to the fact that like cases will be treated alike and are not subjected to the whims and
fancies of individual judges.
2. Certainty
Lawyers and their clients are able to predict what the outcome of particular legal questions is
likely to be in the light of previous judicial decisions. Once the legal rule has been established in
one case, individuals can orientate their behaviour with regard to that rule, relatively secure in
the knowledge that it will not be changed by some later or lower court.
3. Efficiency
Cases to some extent are predictable and save time of the judiciary, lawyers and their clients for
the reason that cases do not have to be reargued. At such would be much less costly for the
parties to the dispute or for the prosecution and defendants.
4. Detailed rules
Case laws respond to real situation. Case laws shows detailed application of law to various
circumstances and are more informative than statutes which are basically theory and logics.
5. Flexibility
Law need to be flexible to meet the needs of the ever changing society and case laws can make
changes faster than parliament. There are various mechanisms by means of which judges can
manipulate the Common Law provide with an opportunity to develop law in particular areas
without waiting for Parliament to enact legislation. Example is the case of Airedale NHS Trust v
Bland [1993] on the question of whether a life support machine should be switched off when a
person was in a persistent vegetable state. Although it will contravene the Human Rights Act (the
right to live), the House of Lords allowed the termination. In Re: A [2000], it dealt with the
question whether a Siamese twin would be separated by an operation when the hospital
recommended this, but where the parents had expressed clearly their objection. Here again, the
House of Lords allowed the operation to proceed.
Disadvantages of Binding Precedent
1. Complexities and voluminous
Hundreds of thousands of decided cases comprise many thousands of pages of law reports and
more added all the time. Judgments are very long, and not readable and the ratio decidendi are
difficult to find. It is also difficult to pinpoint clearly the appropriate principles laid by judges for
each of the decision of each case.
2. Distinguishing by judges

Judges are allowed to distinguish a binding precedent on the case before them if they consider
the principles of the binding precedent to be inappropriate. This leads to mass number of cases
establishing different precedents in varying circumstances which further complicates the
Common Law.
3. Unpredictability
If too many kind of illogical distinctions are made, it is impossible to make out which precedent
will be applied.
4. Rigidity and fixity
Judges have to follow a binding precedent even though they think it is bad law or
inappropriate.Bad judicial decisions may become ossified on the basis of an unjust precedent,
with the consequences that previous injustices are perpetuated for a long time before another
similar case gets to a court high enough to overrule them.
5. Unconstitutional
Case laws are judicial decisions and the fundamental question refers to the fact that the
judiciaries are overstepping their theoretical constitutional role by actually making law rather
than applying it. Law reforms also give rise to the question as to how the law is to develop and
change to cater for changed circumstances if cases are always to be decided according to
precedent.
6. Dependence on chance
Case law changes only in response to those who had brought them through the various court
hierarchies, that is, from High Courts to the Court of Appeals and then to the House of Lords.
Only when a case is pushed far enough to the highest hierarchy of Appeal Courts would a new
precedent be created.

References
1. Abdul Monir b. Yaakob. 1989. An Introduction to Malaysia law. Cetakan Pertama. Bangi:
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
2. Wu Min Aun. 2005. The Malaysian Legal System. Third Edition. Kuala Lumpur: Pearson
Malaysia Sdn. Bhd
3. ________. 2010. Federal Constitution. Petaling Jaya: International Law Book Servises
4. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3274402/business-lawmalaysian-legal-system
5. http://legal-directory.net/english-law/history-of-precedent.htm
6. http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/Sources_of_English_Law/page_10.htm

Federal Constitution, article 150(2B)

Wu Min Aun. 2005. The Malaysian Legal System. Third Edition. Kuala Lumpur: Pearson
Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. p. 67
[3] Wu Min Aun. 2005. The Malaysian Legal System. Third Edition. Kuala Lumpur: Pearson
Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. p. 144
[4] Stare decisis: To stand upon decisions
[5] [1966] 2 MLJ xi.
[6] PP v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 277
[7] Appeals to Privy Council in criminal and constitutional cases were abolished as from 1
January 1978.
[1]
[2]