Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal

On the judicial record

A Federal Court judge whose reported corpus settles foundational questions across separation of powers, defamation, consumer and insurance law, and criminal appeals.

Justice Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal sits in the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan), Malaysia's apex court, and the reported decisions in this corpus resolve constitutional, criminal, commercial and consumer questions of general importance. Constitutional and separation-of-powers questions feature, including whether the treatment of certain matters as 'prima facie evidence' under section 61A abrogated or subjugated the judicial power to the Legislature, the court holding that it did not, and a decision describing section 498 of the Penal Code as an archaic provision from an era when women were regarded as the property of men.

Media and defamation law is a distinct strand, including whether reportage is a separate defence from qualified privilege or the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism, and the effect of a half-truth statement in defamation and whether the courts may rely on foreign common law in applying that doctrine. Consumer and insurance questions arise through a decision on liquidated ascertained damages for the late delivery of vacant possession of housing, and the effect of a failure to obtain ministerial consent under the Insurance Act 1996 after its repeal by the Financial Services Act 2013.

Criminal law appears through a murder appeal concerning the death of a very young child with numerous injuries caused by blunt-force trauma, and public law and civil procedure through a claim arising from an allegedly wrongful arrest and detention, an industrial dispute concerning trade-union activities and the immunity of a trade union, and whether cause papers filed under a particular procedure were properly before the court. A police-accountability appeal also comes before the court, concerning the responsibility of officers for an alleged wrong and the remedies available against them. The decisions reflect an apex-court judge resolving contested points across several fields for the guidance of the courts below, where the ruling settles the governing principle for the legal system rather than merely disposing of the parties' immediate dispute, and where constitutional text and the boundaries between the branches of government carry decisive weight.