This section displays details of the primary case such as the case name, citations, judge, court, and judgment date. Subscribers to reports and/or unreported judgments can access the full text of the decision by selecting the relevant link, if it is available, from the case citation.
This section of the CaseAnalysis Malaysia document lists all cases that have subsequently considered the primary case. Above the list of cases is a
graphical filter you can use to narrow the list of cases by the types of treatment they have received and/or by the courts or years in which
they were decided.
The filter is a set of rows and columns. Each row in the filter identifies one of the four possible case treatments (negative, cautionary, positive,
and neutral) and is represented by a unique colour (red, orange, green, or blue). Each column identifies the court or year in which the cases were decided.
To choose whether you want the columns to identify courts or years, select either Court or Year from the
Court/Year selector above the filter. The selected option appears with a dark background.
Cells appear at the intersections of each treatment type row and each court or year column. A number in a cell identifies the number of cases in the
corresponding court or year that have received the corresponding type of treatment.
Use the filter as follows:
To limit the list to only the cases with a specific treatment type, select the name of the treatment type in the filter’s left margin. All cases
for that treatment type remain in or are restored to the list, and all cases with different treatment types are filtered out of the list.
To limit the list to only the cases associated with a specific treatment type and court or year, select the cell where the desired treatment type row
intersects the desired court or year column. Those cases remain in or are restored to the list, and all other cases are filtered out of the list.
To reset the list to its default state, where all cases are listed, select the Reset link below the filter. The list of cases appears in a table below the filter. By default, the cases are listed by judgment date from most to least recent. You can list the cases in
a different order by selecting a different sorting option from the Sort by drop-down list.
The CaseAnalysis signals appearing in the Signal column indicate the type of judicial treatment each of the decisions has received.
Selecting a signal opens the CaseAnalysis Malaysia entry for the corresponding decision. Subscribers to reports can select the relevant citation link below the case name,
if it is available, to open the full text of the decision. For more information on CaseAnalysis signals, see CaseBase Signals .
Each entry in the Annotation column indicates how the corresponding case was treated. The list below describes the annotations
that can appear in this column and their meanings.
The following is a list of possible annotations and their descriptions:
Applied A principle of law articulated in the primary case is applied to a new set of facts by the court in the subsequent case. Approved The court in the subsequent case has approved the way the court in the primary case, being a court of inferior jurisdiction, has articulated a principle of law. Cited The primary case is merely cited by the court in the subsequent case, without comment. Considered The legal principles articulated in the primary case are considered or discussed without adverse reflection in the subsequent case. Disapproved The decision in the primary case is criticised by the court in the subsequent case. Distinguished The court in the subsequent case holds that the legal principles articulated by the primary case (usually otherwise persuasive or binding
authority) do not apply because of some essential difference between the two cases in fact or law. Explained The decision reached in the primary case is justified by the court in the subsequent case, drawing attention to some feature of the primary
case that may not be immediately obvious on its face. Followed This annotation is similar to "applied", but is used in circumstances where the facts in the primary case resemble reasonably closely the facts
in the subsequent consideration case. Not followed The court in the subsequent case has declined to apply the principles of law articulated in the primary case. Overruled The legal principles articulated in the primary case are held to be incorrect by the court in the subsequent case, which is a court of superior or equivalent jurisdiction. Questioned The court in the subsequent case has expressed doubt about the decision in the primary case, but does not actually determine that the principles of law in the primary
case are incorrect. Listed here are subsequent appeal proceedings relating to the primary case. The annotation before the case name listed indicates whether the appeal case affirmed, varied or reversed the primary case.
The following is a list of possible annotations and their descriptions:
Affirmed The decision in the primary case is upheld on appeal or the primary case itself has affirmed an
earlier decision. Reversed The decision in the primary case is overturned on appeal or the primary case itself has overturned
an earlier decision. Varied The decision in the primary case is only partly reversed or partly affirmed by the subsequent case,
or the primary case itself has partly reversed or partly affirmed an earlier decision. Related The decision in the subsequent or earlier case relates in some way to the primary case, but the court
in the primary case is not assessing the merits of the related decision. Note: Note that different principles in the primary case may be treated differently in the subsequent case,
so that combinations such as Applied/Distinguished are possible (indicating that one principle was applied and another
distinguished).This section of the CaseAnalysis Malaysia document lists all cases that were referred to or considered by the primary case. Above the list of cases is a
graphical filter you can use to narrow the list of cases by the types of treatment they have received and/or by the courts or years in which
they were decided.
The filter is a set of rows and columns. Each row in the filter identifies one of the four possible case treatments (negative, cautionary, positive,
and neutral) and is represented by a unique colour (red, orange, green, or blue). Each column identifies the court or year in which the cases were decided.
To choose whether you want the columns to identify courts or years, select either Court or Year from the
Court/Year selector above the filter. The selected option appears with a dark background.
Cells appear at the intersections of each treatment type row and each court or year column. A number in a cell identifies the number of cases in the
corresponding court or year that have received the corresponding type of treatment.
Use the filter as follows:
To limit the list to only the cases with a specific treatment type, select the name of the treatment type in the filter’s left margin. All cases
for that treatment type remain in or are restored to the list, and all cases with different treatment types are filtered out of the list. To limit the list to only the cases associated with a specific treatment type and court or year, select the cell where the desired treatment type row
intersects the desired court or year column. Those cases remain in or are restored to the list, and all other cases are filtered out of the list. To reset the list to its default state, where all cases are listed, select the Reset link below the filter. The list of cases appears in a table below the filter. By default, the cases are listed by judgment date from most to least recent. You can list the cases in
a different order by selecting a different sorting option from the Sort by drop-down list.
The CaseAnalysis signals appearing in the Signal column indicate the type of judicial treatment each of the decisions has received.
Selecting a signal opens the CaseAnalysis Malaysia entry for the corresponding decision. Subscribers to reports can select the relevant citation link below the case name,
if it is available, to open the full text of the decision. For more information on CaseAnalysis signals, see CaseBase Signals .
Each entry in the Annotation column indicates how the corresponding case was treated. The list below describes the annotations
that can appear in this column and their meanings.
The following is a list of possible annotations and their descriptions:
Applied A principle of law articulated in the primary case is applied to a new set of facts by the court in the subsequent case. Approved The court in the subsequent case has approved the way the court in the primary case, being a court of inferior jurisdiction, has articulated a principle of law. Cited The primary case is merely cited by the court in the subsequent case, without comment. Considered The legal principles articulated in the primary case are considered or discussed without adverse reflection in the subsequent case. Disapproved The decision in the primary case is criticised by the court in the subsequent case. Distinguished The court in the subsequent case holds that the legal principles articulated by the primary case (usually otherwise persuasive or binding
authority) do not apply because of some essential difference between the two cases in fact or law. Explained The decision reached in the primary case is justified by the court in the subsequent case, drawing attention to some feature of the primary
case that may not be immediately obvious on its face. Followed This annotation is similar to "applied", but is used in circumstances where the facts in the primary case resemble reasonably closely the facts
in the subsequent consideration case. Not followed The court in the subsequent case has declined to apply the principles of law articulated in the primary case. Overruled The legal principles articulated in the primary case are held to be incorrect by the court in the subsequent case, which is a court of superior or equivalent jurisdiction. Questioned The court in the subsequent case has expressed doubt about the decision in the primary case, but does not actually determine that the principles of law in the primary
case are incorrect.