J
Jabatan Peguam Negara
Organisation 11 cases
About Jabatan Peguam Negara
Jabatan Peguam Negara appears as a party in 11 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning September 2023 to February 2026. Jabatan Peguam Negara appeared as respondent in 5 cases, amicus curiae in 2 cases, applicant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (6), Federal Court (5).
Case areas include Shares (1 cases), Article 128(1)(b) Federal Constitution (1 cases), The central issue in these 4 appeals concerns the interpretation and understanding of the Attorney General’s consent obtained under Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 [Act 359]. (1 cases).
How many court cases involve Jabatan Peguam Negara?
Jabatan Peguam Negara appears in 11 published judgments from September 2023 to February 2026. Most commonly as respondent (5 cases).
In which Malaysian courts has Jabatan Peguam Negara appeared?
Jabatan Peguam Negara has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (6 cases) and Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) (5 cases), totaling 11 judgments.
Practice Areas
The central issue in these 4 appeals concerns the interpretation and understanding of the Attorney General’s consent obtained under Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 Act 359. 1 Of the four appeals, three appeals arose from the judicial review proceedings JR proceedings while the fourth appeal arose from proceedings related to Originating Summons No: 24NCVC-1128-12/2014 OS 1128. We heard all four appeals together. After full consideration of the submissions, reasonings of the Courts below and the records of appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeals relating to the JR proceedings and dismissed the appeal relating to OS 1128. 1 1 Section 498 of the Penal Code is an archaic and anachronistic provision which comes from an unfortunate bygone Victorian era when women were regarded as the personal property of men or even an extension of men not unlike how slaves were treated for a long time until abolished in the last century. 2 Section 498 is unconstitutional for the reason that it unlawfully discriminates only on the ground of gender which is violative of Article 8(2). 3 Constitutional validity deals with the objective compliance of the impugned law vis-à-vis the FC. And when it concerns pre-Merdeka law, the Judiciary is only objectively empowered to modify the law to the extent of rendering the law valid. Repeal is the last option where the only way to render the law valid would be to delete it. CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE: Whether Section 498 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental principle of equality governed under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution? 1 Article 128(1)(b) Federal Constitution 1 Shares 1 right to appeal dismissal of interlocutory application to strike out pleadings Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 when the right to appeal vests whether the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is retrospective legislative intention behind the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 writ filed before 1 October 2022 striking out application filed before 1 October 2022 preliminary objection non-appealable decision pursuant to section 68(1)(f) of the CJA purposive approach to statutory interpretation statutory purposive approach section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 harmonious statutory interpretation state of the law prior to the amendment to section 68 position in law post-amendment of section 68 section 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 definition of the word 'decision' legislative intention behind the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Bill 1998 the general purpose of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 phrase ‘finally disposes of the rights of the parties’ test of finality definition of the word ‘ruling’ meaning of the phrase 'in the course of' contextual interpretation what constitutes a right of a party in litigation and how it is affected 1 TORT KECUAIAN: Tuntutan gantirugi terhadap defendan-defendan berikutan kemalangan pada 9.7.2018 yang mengakibatkan plaintif mengalami kecacatan kekal. Defendan pertama dilantik oleh defendan kedua kerja-kerja pengorekan dan pengalihan tanah berdekatan Jalan Pekeliling KM8.4 KLIA. Defendan Kedua adalah anak syarikat milikan penuh defendan ketiga. Defendan Kedua meletakkan penghadang jalan di laluan km 8.4 dan berlaku kemalangan akibat motorsikal yang ditunggang oleh Pihak Ketiga merempuh penghadang tersebut dan mengakibatkan kecederaan kepada plaintif, pembonceng motorsikal 1 UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti terletak di bahu plaintif untuk membuktikan tuntutannya 1
Respondent (5)
wa-25-291-07-2024 MYHC
MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA MALAYSIA v 1. ) National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH PERHUBUNGAN PERUSAHAAN 3. ) MALAYAN COMMERCIAL BANKS' ASSOCIATION 4. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Tan Eng Hong 2. ) Abdul Jamil Bin Haji Jalaludeen
12 February 2026
wa-25-113-05-2025 MYHC
KELAB PEMBINA-PEMBINA SELANGOR (SELANGOR BUILDERS' CLUB) v 1. ) Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN) 2. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara
30 October 2025
ba-25-145-12-2024 MYHC
CHEY AH KOW v 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) NG TZE SHEN
13 August 2025
06rj-3-04-2023b MYFC
LAI HEN BENG v Jabatan Peguam Negara
14 December 2023
01f-3-02-2023p MYFC
1. ) FIVE STAR HERITAGE SDN BHD 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Maung Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society v Jabatan Peguam Negara
11 September 2023