Judicial decisions

Judicial decisions is also known as case law (case laws). Refers to the circumstances in which the

court referred to previous case decisions to settle disputes before them. However, judges in the cases

referred to earlier is bound by the principles of the doctrine of judicial precedent or the doctrine of

binding precedent. Judges cannot act recklessly in reference to previous cases and conditions in this

doctrine should be followed. Judicial decisions are a source of Malaysian law that is very important

and often used by courts. Theoretically, the law is made by legislative bodies such as parliament and

the state assembly. The duty of the court is to only interpret the approved law. However, as in the

common-law system, judges in interpreting indirectly have also made the law. The interpretations

made are usually to fill the vacancy inherent in statute legislation or to give new meaning as well as

to create new legal principles.

Judicial decisions can be given two meanings: court decisions arising from legal interpretations made

by legislative bodies or court decisions using judicial precedent when deciding on cases where the

facts are similar. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court should follow the earlier decisions of

the higher courts and its own previous decisions (for some cases) and the equivalent courts (now and

then, if any, as long as these courts lies within the same hierarchy). In the application of the doctrine

of stare decisis, only the ratio of decedent cases that bind the case later and not the obiter dictum.

Decedent ratios are the legal principles that form the basis of the decision of the case.

However, it is somewhat more complicated in Malaysia because there are some revamps which

occurs in the hierarchy of courts in Malaysia. In general, the doctrine of stare decisis operates in two

ways, namely the declaratory precedent, in which the court shall follow the higher court decisions

and the original precedent, in which a half of the court shall follow the decisions of the earlier and

the same rank court (past or present).

As stated above, the adoption of this doctrine in Malaysia is a bit complicated as in the past, there

has been several reshuffles in the hierarchy of the courts in the country. For example:

1. Between 1985 and 1995 - the Supreme Court was the highest court in Malaysia, but after

1995, it was no longer in the hierarchy of court.

2. Prior to 1985, the decisions of the federal court could be appealed to Privy Council and the

great YDP. But after 1995, the federal court was the Supreme Court and no appeal could be

made after the federal court ruled.

3. The court of appeal only exists after 1995.