![]() This enlightening session with Judge Hisham is a timely reminder for me that the law must keep pace with the ever-evolving societal needs, and more importantly, everyone has a part to play in the development of law. Nevertheless, he stated regretfully that the court was bound by the principle of ‘stare decisis’ when arriving at his decision in Chin Yoke Teng.Īs a chambering pupil, it is easy to get bogged down by the challenges and every day work and lose sight of what really matters. Judge Hisham likewise opined that this is an area of law that needs to be revisited to reconcile the conflicts. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no authorities were found to support the proposition that an unborn child had a legal personality to sue, despite the fact that an unborn child has life, enjoys certain rights under the laws and is protected by the Penal Code from harm.ĭuring the discussion, I raised the observation that there appears to be a conflicting legal position between the recognition of the rights of an unborn child. The Plaintiff added her unborn child as the second plaintiff in her action for breach of promise to marry. The case of Chin Yoke Teng interested me as it relates to the novel point of law on the legal personality of an unborn child to sue. ![]() I was, however, lucky enough to have the privilege and pleasure to be seated down with the honourable retired Court of Appeal Judge- Dato’ Seri Md Hishamudin Yunus and Consultant at Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership in his office to discuss his authoritative judgement of Chin Yoke Teng & Anor v William Ui Yee Mein 1 CLJ 819. ![]() Not everyday one gets to listen to the presiding judge himself giving his insights into the workings of a case. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |