Written Assignment

JUDICIAL NOTICE

LAWS 4310 Evidence 1

No Name Matric Number Section

1 Mohammad Afiq bin Mohd Faudzi 2015371 1

2 Muhammad Danish Sakhawi Bin Sahroul Anuar 2017595 1

Instructor’s Name: Mdm. Duryana binti Mohamed

Question 1

Define the meaning of facts need not be proved and disproved fact based on the Evidence Act
1950.

Under the Evidence Act 1950, the definition of "fact" is provided in Section 3, which
includes anything, state of things, or relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses
and any mental condition of which a person is conscious. The Act further delineates the term
"proved" in Section 3, stating that a fact is considered "proved" when the court, after considering
the matters before it, either believes its existence or considers its existence so probable that a
prudent person ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that it
exists.

Section 56 of the Evidence Act 1950 establishes that no fact of which the court will take
judicial notice needs to be proved. Additionally, Section 58(1) highlights that if parties agree to
admit certain facts before the hearing, those facts are deemed to have been admitted by their
pleadings.

Furthermore, Section 4 of the Evidence Act addresses the different types of

presumptions: presumption of fact, presumption of law, and conclusive or irrebuttable
presumption. The Act provides a comprehensive framework for the establishment and
understanding of facts within the legal context.

An illustrative case is Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [2001] 3 All ER 126, where
the court considered the circumstances surrounding an incident on an airline. In this case, the
claimant, Morris, alleged distress after an incident on a flight. The court, in its judgment,
acknowledged the conditions of economy class travel, taking judicial notice that those traveling
in such conditions may experience relatively cramped spaces and close proximity to fellow
passengers. This case exemplifies the court's ability to apply judicial notice to certain facts based
on common knowledge.
 In summary, the Evidence Act 1950 provides a framework for understanding and proving
facts, encompassing definitions, presumptions, and procedures. Certain facts, as per Sections 56
and 58(1), need not be proved under specific circumstances, and the Act establishes the
parameters for judicial notice and the admission of facts by parties. The case of Morris v KLM
Royal Dutch Airlines further exemplifies the application of judicial notice in assessing the
circumstances of a case.
Question 2

“Now, the general rule is that all facts and relevant facts must be proved by evidence. There are,
however, two classes of facts which need not be proved.”

Per Syed Agil Barakbah S.C.J in the case of Pembangunan Maha Murni Sdn. Bhd. v. Jururus
Ladang Sdn. Bhd. [1986] 2 MLJ 30 at p. 30.

Elaborate on the “two classes of facts” referred to in the quoted passage above with support from
leading cases.

There are two classes of facts that are quoted in the passage which are judicial notice and facts
admitted.

Referring to Section 58(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, no fact need be proved in any
proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing or which before
the hearing they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of
pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings. Subsection (2)
of the same section mentions that it is not applicable in criminal proceedings. The case that can
be cited is the case of NCR Century (M) Sdn Bhd dan satu lagi lwn Lai Yan Chee [2020]
MLJU 1396. The First Plaintiff is involved in the service business, nail beauty and nail beauty
academy and operates a nail salon using the "CC Nails" brand since March 2019. The second
plaintiff was a director of the company. Since 2015, the Second Plaintiff has been working as a
nail beautician (manicurist) in one sole proprietor business registered as NCR Century Enterprise
by using the "CC Nails" sign. After the disposal of the NCR Enterprise business, Chen Kok Long
and the Second Plaintiff established a company, the First Plaintiff engaged in nail beauty services
and a nail beauty academy continuing the good name and reputation of "CC Nails". Defendant
published and posted various defamatory statements against the Plaintiffs in various events. Both
the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed on the fact that the defendant has a Facebook website
under the username Yoriko Lai. The court held that because it is very widely used, some
countries such as Iran and China restrict the use of Facebook. Since its existence is not disputed
and based on section 58 of the Act Evidence 1950, the Court took note that it exists and does not
need to be proven.

As regards to the form of judicial notice, Commonwealth Shipping Representative v P &

O Branch Service [1923] AC 191 is a good case that highlighted this matter. The court of the
opinion that forms of judicial notice can be without Inquiry (If so notorious or well known), after
inquiry (By looking at readily accessible material/book) and provided by Statute. Section 57(1)
mandates the court to take notice of laws, regulations with the force of law, public Acts passed
by Parliament, and specified matters enumerated in subsection (1) (a) to (o) of the section.

Without inquiry, Nye v. Niblett [1918] 1 KB 23. The court held that “These are facts so
generally known or so notorious as not to be capable of reasonable dispute. So far as matters of
common knowledge are concerned, it is saying there is no need of formally offering evidence of
those things, because practically everyone knows them in advance and there can be no question
of them. Some examples of these types of facts is that “cats are kept for domestic purposes”.

After inquiry, here the court can take account of facts after investigation even though
such facts are not generally known as long as they can be readily ascertained from readily
available authoritative sources. This form of taking judicial notice can be exemplified in diverse
ways. Section 57(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 states that the court may resort to appropriate
books/documents of reference. In McQuaker v. Goddard [1940] 1 KB 687, the trial judge
consulted books and experts on whether camels were wild by nature and held that they were
domestic creatures. There was some dispute over that conclusion but the court of Appeal held
that judicial notice could be taken of the matter. In his consultations the judge was taking
evidence in the ordinary sense but conducting an inquiry prior to taking judicial notice of a fact.
The judge takes judicial notice of the ordinary course of nature and in this particular case of the
ordinary case of nature in regards to the position of camels among other animals. Provided by
Statute (Section 57).

Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia v Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd [2010] MLJU 1737. The
respondent intervener owned about 9.156 hectares of land, and a portion was acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act 1960 for a highway project. The Land Administrator assessed
compensation at RM20,862,281.75, prompting objections from both the appellant applicant
(claiming excessiveness) and the respondent intervener (claiming inadequacy). The respondent
intervener sought various orders, including striking out the appellant's objection, based on
grounds of locus standi and estoppel. The judge, while acknowledging both grounds, only
addressed the issue of locus standi and allowed the respondent intervener's application, striking
out the appellant's objection. The respondent intervener contends that the appellant applicant
lacks locus standi under section 37(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (LAA), asserting they failed
to make a timely claim to the Land Administrator during the acquisition. However, given the
judicial notice confirming the appellant's authority in highway matters in Malaysia, it is argued
that they are the proper party for the reference to the High Court. The acquisition for "Projek
Lebuhraya Kajang-Seremban" aligns with section 3(1)(b) of the LAA, benefiting Malaysia's
economic development.

The doctrine of judicial notice, as outlined in sections 56 and 57 of the Evidence Act
1950, supports the acceptance of facts without formal proof. Notorious or clearly established
matters, such as those demonstrated in various authorities, do not require pleading. Judicial
notice extends beyond evidence to everyday knowledge and experience, allowing judges to rely
on their local knowledge within reasonable limits.

The appellant's authority in highway matters is considered widely known, and the
conclusion is drawn that the land acquisition was made on their behalf for "Projek Lebuhraya
Kajang-Seremban." The majority judgment asserts that the appellant has the necessary locus
standi with a "sufficient interest" in the matter.
Question 3

Briefly discuss the exceptional circumstances when a court may dispense with the proof of facts
in issue and relevant facts.

In exceptional circumstances, a court may dispense with the proof of facts in issue and
relevant facts based on the provisions of the Evidence Act 1950, specifically highlighted in
Section 4. Section 4 outlines different types of presumptions that can affect the burden of proof
in legal proceedings. The first type, as per Section 4(1), states that when the court "may
presume" a fact, it can either regard the fact as proved unless and until disproved or call for proof
of it. This discretionary nature allows the court to evaluate the facts and circumstances of the
case before deciding to invoke a presumption of fact.

Moreover, Section 4(2) introduces a mandatory presumption where the court "shall
presume" a fact, and it must regard the fact as proved unless and until disproved. This mandatory
nature leaves no choice for the court but to hold the fact as proved once the basic facts are
established. Examples of such mandatory presumptions include those provided under Sections
79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 88 of the Evidence Act.

The case of YB Dato’ Hj Husam Hj Musa v Mohd Faisal Rohban Ahmad (2015)
illustrates the application of Section 114A (1), which is part of the presumptions outlined in the
Evidence Act. In this case, the court invoked the presumption of fact under Section 114A,
emphasizing the appellant's ability to link the respondent to defamatory posts. The court ruled
that the respondent's defense of mere denial was insufficient to rebut the presumption,
highlighting the significant impact of mandatory presumptions on the burden of proof.

Additionally, Section 4(3) establishes conclusive proof, stating that when one fact is
declared by the Act to be conclusive proof of another, the court shall regard the other as proved
and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. Ainan bin Mahmud v
Syed Abu Bakar bin Habib Yusoff [1939] MLJ 209 provides an example of a case where
Section 112 of the Evidence Enactment establishes a strong presumption of legitimacy for a child
born during a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution. This conclusive
presumption can only be rebutted by proving non-access, emphasizing the crucial period of birth
in questions of legitimacy.

In summary, the exceptional circumstances when a court may dispense with the proof of
facts in issue and relevant facts are guided by the various presumptions outlined in Section 4 of
the Evidence Act 1950. The court's discretion, mandatory presumptions, and conclusive proofs
impact the burden of proof in legal proceedings, shaping the evaluation of evidence in specific
situations.

In addition, exceptional circumstances under which a court may dispense with the proof
of facts in issue and relevant facts are outlined in the Evidence Act 1950, particularly through
formal admissions. Section 58 of the Evidence Act explicitly addresses this, stating that no fact
needs to be proved in any proceeding if the parties or their agents agree to admit it at the hearing
or before the hearing through a written agreement. This provision is further supported by Order
18 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012, which establishes that a party is bound by its admission
or the admission of its agent. The case of R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of
Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 reinforces the principle that a party is bound by its
pleadings. In this case, it was emphasized that once a party admits certain facts, it is obligated to
adhere to those admissions. However, the court, at its discretion, may still require the admitted
facts to be proved in a manner other than by the admissions. These authorities collectively
underscore the significance of formal admissions in sparing the court from the need to elicit
proof of facts that the parties have willingly acknowledged or admitted, streamlining the legal
proceedings.