Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
DR VIJAENDREH SUBRAMANIAM & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. core issue on interpretation of relevant acts (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts related to ivermectin (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments of respondents for dispensing ivermectin (Para 18 , 21 , 32) |
| 4. appellants' case against dispensing unregistered drugs (Para 27 , 28 , 111 , 112) |
| 5. main judicial issues and legal tenability (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 90) |
| 6. separation of powers regarding executive policy (Para 53 , 56 , 64 , 68 , 160) |
| 7. conclusion on the determination of dispensing rights (Para 169) |
Introduction
[1] The core issue in this appeal concerns the interpretation of certain provisions in the Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] and the Poison Regulations 1952 , as well as the Sale of Drugs Act 1952 [Act 368] and its regulations, namely the Control of Drugs and Cosmetics Regulations 1984 . We shall respectively refer to them asAct 366, the 1952 Regulations, Act 368, and the 1984 Regulations.
[2] The six questions upon which leave was granted ('Leave Questions'), are these:
"Leave Question 1
Whether the legal principles enunciated in Datuk Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed v. Government Of Malaysia & Anor 1978 MarsdenLR 37; 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
