Malaysian Legal System

(UUP1313)

CIVIL LAW ACT 1956: ITS

APPLICATION AND
IMPLICATIONS ON THE
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

Dr. Haniwarda Yaakob

Faculty of Law
UKM
Origins of Civil Law Act 1956 (CLA)
2

Civil Law
Enactment 1937 FMS

Civil Law
Extended CLE
(Extension)
1937 to UFMS
Ordinance 1951

Repealed both
Civil Law statutes –
Ordinance 1956 applicable to
Federation of
Malaya
20/10/2021
 origins
3

Sabah: Application Sarawak:

CLO
of Laws Ordinance Application of Laws
1956
1951 Ordinance 1949

When Malaysia was

formed in 1963, CLO
Civil Law Ordinance
1956 was extended
(Extension) Order
to Sabah and
1971
Sarawak w.e.f
1/4/1972

Now, CLO 1956 is known as the Civil Law Act 1956 (revised 1972)

20/10/2021
 Application of CLA 1956
4

Section Section Section

(1)

(2)

(3)
3 5 6

20/10/2021
 Application of CLA 1956
5

Section 3

English Allows the

common application of Equity
law

s. 5: allows s.6: prevents the

the application
But
application of
of statutes in c/law & equity on
mercantile land matters
matters

20/10/2021
 Application of CLA 1956: section 3
6

s.3(1)(a) s.3(1)(b) s.3(1)(c)

• In Peninsular • In Sabah, the • In Sarawak, the

Malaysia, the Court shall Court shall
Court shall apply the apply common
apply the common law, law, equity and
common law of equity and statutes of
England and statutes of general
equity as general application as
administered in application as administered in
England on administered in England on
7/4/1956 England on 12/12/1949
• See Mokhtar v 1/12/1951 • [subject to para
Arumugam; (3)(ii)]
Jamil bin Harun

20/10/2021
Section 3 CLA 1956: Conditions and Restrictions
7

(1) Cut-off dates

 ► 7 April 1956 for Peninsular Malaysia;

 ► 1 December 1952 for Sabah;
 ► 12 December 1956 for Sarawak

Only English common law, equity and statutes administered in

England as at those dates are binding.

20/10/2021
Section 3 CLA 1956: Conditions and Restrictions
8

English common law and equity &

statutes after those dates are merely
persuasive

Lee Kee Leong Bee &

Chong v Co v Ling
Empat Num
Nombor Rubber
Ekor Works
Jamil bin
Harun v Yang
Kamsiah

20/10/2021
Section 3 CLA 1956: Conditions and Restrictions
9

(2) The application of English

statutes

 ► Section 3(1)(a) – only English common law and

equity are applicable to West Malaysia;

 ► Section 3(1)(b)&(c) – English common law, equity

and statutes of general application are applicable to
Sabah and Sarawak.

20/10/2021
Section 3 CLA 1956: Conditions and Restrictions
10
Mokhtar v Arumugam:
“Its is quite clear that in
England the power of the
court to award damages
in the nature of interest
for delay in returning
specific goods is a remedy
conferred by statutes and
not one available at
common law. This relief,
being a creature of
English statutes, is NOT
available here.”
Jayakumari v Suriya
Narayana: the court
held that a relief based
on the British Domestic
Violence and
Matrimonial
Proceedings Act 1976
and English authorities
relating thereto “may
not be binding in our
country.”
20/10/2021
Section 3 CLA 1956: Conditions and Restrictions
11

(3) In the absence of local law

 ► English law is only binding and applicable in the

absence of local law.

 ►AG v Manjeet Singh Dillon: in the absence of

specific law on contempt of court in Malaysia, the
common law of contempt as stated in R v Grey
should be applied.

20/10/2021
Section 3 CLA 1956: Conditions and Restrictions
12

(4) Suitable to local

circumstances

 Proviso to section 3(1):

“provided always that the said common law, rules of
equity and statutes of general application shall be
applied so far only as the circumstances of the
States of Malaysia and their respective
inhabitants permit and subject to such
qualifications as local circumstances render
necessary.”

20/10/2021
Section 3 CLA 1956: Conditions and Restrictions
13

 Syarikat Batu Sinar v UMBC: the Court did not apply

English common law because it contradicts Malaysian
law;

 AG v Manjeet Singh Dillon: “When applying the law

of contempt in Malaysia, the court will not lose sight of
local conditions and for the reason it would be necessary
to take a stricter view…”

 Balakrishnan a/l Subramaniam v Penguasa

Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Simpang Renggam
[2014] 10 MLJ 226.

20/10/2021
 Section 5 CLA
14

► Section 5(1) :

“In all questions which arise or which have to be

decided in the States of Peninsular Malaysia
other than Malacca and Penang with respect to
the law of partnership …, and with respect to
mercantile law generally, the law to be
administered shall be the same as would be
administered in England in the like case at the
date of the coming into force of this Act…”

20/10/2021
 Section 5 CLA
15

► Section 5(2):

“In all questions which arise or which have to be

decided in the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah
and Sarawak with respect to the law concerning
any of the matters referred to in subsection (1), the
law to be administered shall be the same as would
be administered in England, in the like case at
the corresponding period, if such question or
issue had arises or had to be decided in England…”

20/10/2021
 Section 5
16

 English law in section 5 includes:

On
mercantile
law

20/10/2021
 Section 5
17

“the law on buying

What is and selling
mercantile merchandise” as per
Wood J in Vulcan
law? Match co. v Herm
Jebsen

20/10/2021
 Section 5
18

s.5(1) s.5(2)
Section 5(1) Section 5(2) applies to the
applies to West former Straits Settlement
Malaysia i.e. the Colonies of Penang and
former FMS and Malacca and also to Sabah
UFMS and Sarawak.

English law English law applicable at the

applicable is at corresponding date – no cut
7/4/1956 off dates

20/10/2021
 Interpretations of Section 5
19

 (I) Seng Djit Hin v Nagurdas:

 Facts: P sued for damages for D’s failure to deliver goods due to war.
Issue in question was whether the defence in the English Realm
(Amendment) Act and Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1917 were
applicable.

 Held:
 (1) S.6(=s.5) allows the application of ALL English law and not English
law on mercantile matters only;

 (2) The court must first determine whether the issue in question is of a
mercantile nature. If so, then ALL English law (not restricted to
statutes on mercantile matters only) are applicable.
20/10/2021
 Interpretations of Section 5
20

 (II) Shaik Sahied v Sockaligham Chetiar:

 Facts: P sued for money due on a promissory note
and a cheque. D seek to invoke English
Moneylenders Act. Q: Can such a statute be applied?

 Held: The statute (i.e. moneylender’s Act) was not

part of mercantile law and the issue raised was not
an issue of mercantile law. Hence. The said Act
cannot be applied.

20/10/2021
 Section 5
21

Seng Djit Hin v Nagurdas Shaik Sahied v Sokhalingam

If the issue in question is of a
mercantile nature, then ANY English
law can be applied – not restricted to
English law on mercantile only.
To determine whether English
mercantile law is applicable to
Malaysia, the court must look at the
statute in question. If the statute is of a
commercial matter, then English
mercantile law can be applied.

However, it can be argued that section 5 is

of little relevance now since Malaysia has
her own commercial laws such as Contract
Act, Insurance Act etc.

20/10/2021
 Section 6
22

 “Nothing in this Part shall be taken to introduce in

Malaysia or any of the States comprised therein any
part of the law of England relating to the tenure or
conveyance or assurance of or succession to any
immovable property or any estate right or interest
therein.”

20/10/2021
 Section 6
23

 Section 6 expressly excludes the application of

English law on land matters made possible by
section 3(1);

 Reason: when CLO 1956 was enacted, there were

local legislations available on land law.

 Malaysian land law is based on Australian Torrens

system which is different from English land law.

20/10/2021
 Section 6
24

Q: Can English equitable principles be

applied to land matters?
United Malayan Banking Corp v Pemungut Hasil Tanah: the NLC is
complete – no need to refer to English equitable principles on land law.

Woo Yok Wan v Loo Pek Chee; Baghwan Singh v Hock Hin Bros; Lian
Keow s/b v Overseas Credit Finance; Tan Peng Huat v Tan Boon Chong
[2015] – these cases have accepted English equitable principles on land law.

20/10/2021
 Civil Law Act 1956: Issues Arising
25

 Rais Yatim, “Akta Sivil Perlu Dikaji Semula”, Utusan

Malaysia, September 2013:

“Akta Sivil 1956 perlu dikaji semula

supaya selari dengan amalan dan nilai
negara ini sekali gus tidak lagi
bergantung kepada sistem barat.”

20/10/2021
Civil Law Act 1956: Issues Arising
26

“Undang-undang itu perlu

mengambilkira kewujudan sistem di
tanah air termasuk pengaruh dari
rantau nusantara terutama dari
Indonesia, Brunei, Singapura dan
selatan Thailand berkaitan berkaitan
perundangan jenayah dan
dagangan.”

20/10/2021
 Issues arising
27

“Sebagai contoh kes-kes penting yang

dilaksanakan di Indonesia boleh diambil
sebagai nas (rujukan) keadilan kerana kita
tidak boleh mengharapkan autoriti lama
bersandarkan di United Kingdom. Kita mesti
cari apa yang berlaku di negara-negara
Islam sekiranya sistem itu adil dan saksama.”

20/10/2021
 issues
28

 Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim argued that Section 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956
should be repealed so that Islamic laws and principles should be used
to fill in the lacunae in local laws. He stated:

“It is a pity that the opportunity was not taken to repeal

Section 3(1) of the Civil Law Ordinance 1956...As the law
is being developed in Malaysia through legislation and
judicial decisions, there will be less and less need to rely
on the English law to fill in any lacunae in the law.
Perhaps the time has come to consider whether another
method of filling in the lacunae in the law should not be
adopted to recognise the fact that Muslim law is the law
of the land in Malaysia...”

20/10/2021
 issues
29

 Farid Sufian argued that English law has been

imposed on Tanah Melayu during British
intervention without any legal basis – e.g. through
the setting up of English styled courts and the
appointment of English judges who applied English
laws instead of local laws;

 The application of English law was only legalised

through Common Law Enactment (Act);

20/10/2021
 issues
30

 E.g. Government of Perak v A.R. Adams [1914]

2 FMSLR 144: a court in Perak immediately applied
English rules in Rylands v Fletcher without
attempting to find out the Islamic law or custom on
the matter.

 Farid Sufian argued that the courts should have

applied local laws, not foreign law. They should have
applied to Islamic law and custom as the law of the
land.

20/10/2021
 conclusion
31

► Nepline Sdn. Bhd. V Jones Lang Wooten

[1995] 1 CLJ 865:

❶ The primary source is written law (if local law exist,

cannot use English law);

❷ If no written law, the court should identify the

common law as administered in England on 7/4/1956
(for west Malaysia);

20/10/2021
 conclusion
32

❸ Then, the court must consider whether “local

circumstances” and “local inhabitants” permit the
application of English common law and equity;

❹ If not, the court is then free to develop its own law

which may be describe as the Malaysian Common Law
by referring to other countries.

20/10/2021
 conclusion
33

▪ Dato’ Abdul Hamid bin Haji Mohamad (2001):

“Saya belum temui suatu kajian tentang mengapa
setahun sebelum memberi kemerdekaan kepada
Malaya (pada masa itu) undang-undang itu (Akta
Undang-Undang Sivil 1956) dibuat. Adakah pihak
British ingin memastikan bahawa Malaya yang
merdeka akan terus memakai “common law of
England” dan “the rules of equity” seperti ia hendak
memastikan pemakaian “basic law” di Hong Kong
apabila ia hendak menyerahkannya balik kepada
China.”
20/10/2021
 conclusion
34

“Untuk lebih adil terhadap niat British, perlu diambil

perhatian bahawa peruntukan itu pun tertakluk kepada
undang-undang yang akan dibuat oleh badan perundangan
di negara ini dan pemakaian “common law of England” dan
“the rules of equity” itu pun tertakluk kepada kesesuaiannya
dengan keadaan di Malaya, sekarang Malaysia. Pendek
kata peruntukan untuk membuat undang-undang
baru dan menolak pemakaian “common law of
England” dan “the rules of equity” ada. Jika kita
tidak memanfaatnya, itu salah kita.”

20/10/2021
The End
35

20/10/2021