Dato' Yap Peng; PP

JurisdictionMalaysia
Judgment Date1987
Date1987
Year1987
CourtSupreme Court (Malaysia)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
72 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Claim For Liquidated Ascertained Damages And Late Delivery Of Vacant Possession
    • Malaysia
    • Mondaq Malaysia
    • 1 December 2022
    ...written law will not have a retrospective effect. The rule of prospective overruling was observed in Public Prosecutor v Dato' Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311 and Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ The Federal Court in the PJD Regency case did not make a prospective rulin......
6 books & journal articles
  • PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...2 AC 411 at [13]. 107Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 1012 at [26]. 108 See also Public Prosecutor v Dato Yap Peng[1987] 2 MLJ 311. 109 See Public Prosecutor v Norzian bin Bintat[1995] 3 SLR(R) 105 (that Art 35(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“the Constitut......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2004, December 2004
    • 1 December 2004
    ...This would seem consistent with the observation by Hashim Yeop A Sani SCJ in the Malaysian Supreme Court decision of PP v Dato” Yap Peng[1987] 2 MLJ 311 that the Public Prosecutor is not an ‘ordinary public officer’ but is constitutionally mandated ‘to play a vital role in the administratio......
  • OF RETROSPECTIVE CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING: REVISITING PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN MENG KHIN & 24 ORS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1996, December 1996
    • 1 December 1996
    ...instances, inter alia, Merdeka University Bhd v Government of Malaysia[1981] 2 MLJ 356 (Kuala Lumpur High Court) and PP v Dato’ Yap Peng[1987] 2 MLJ 311 (Kuala Lumpur High Court). 31 [1981] 1 MLJ 64 (Privy Council on appeal from Singapore). 32 Ibid, at 70. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Jacobs, Europ......
  • BRIDGING THE GREAT DIVIDE BETWEEN MISTAKES OF LAW AND FACT IN RESTITUTION: IS THE BRIDGE SAFE TO CROSS?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1999, December 1999
    • 1 December 1999
    ...is unconstitutional may be made prospectively (see for example, Golak Nath v State of PunjabAIR 1967 SC 1643 and PP v Data’ Yap Peng[1987] 2 MLJ 311). It is respectfully submitted that these cases have been wrongly decided. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please see Low Fatt K......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT