KETUA POLIS NEGARA & ORS vs NURASMIRA MAULAT JAFFAR & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 3131

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KETUA POLIS NEGARA & ORS – Appellant
Versus
NURASMIRA MAULAT JAFFAR & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Alice Loke Yee Ching,Habibah Harun,Zureen Elin Mohd Dom ,Respondent Advocate: V Rajadevan

Table of Content
1. rulings on the admissibility of exemplary damages. (Para 41 , 42 , 73)
2. discussion on legal arguments raised by both sides. (Para 57 , 60 , 68)
3. concluding findings on the appeals and their outcomes. (Para 131 , 143)
4. final decisions rendered by the court. (Para 132 , 134 , 140)

[41] The Court of Appeal, after hearing the parties, allowed the respondents' appeal and ruled that the judgment of the High Court showed error of law of a grave nature which required the Court of Appeal to intervene.

[42] The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing in the grounds of judgment of the High Court that stated that the appellants had discharged their burden of proving self-defence.

[43] The Court of Appeal awarded damages in the sum of RM51,000.00 for the respondents' dependency claim. The Court also awarded exemplary damages in the sum of RM300,000.00.

[44] In granting the claim for exemplary damages, the Court of Appeal held that exemplary damages are permissible when a complaint is related to breach of fundamental guarantee under the Federal Constitution. The Court of Appeal said:

(i) The House of Lords as early as 1964 in Rookes v. Barnard [1964] AC 1129 has held that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 3131

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAKETUA POLIS NEGARA & ORS – AppellantVersusNURASMIRA MAULAT JAFFAR & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KETUA POLIS NEGARA & ORS – Appellant
Versus
NURASMIRA MAULAT JAFFAR & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent