Get it free on bolehbahkalaukau.com

LAST week’s article, Law @ the speed of thought, was a hit with many readers of the Borneo Post and I received a lot of positive feedback.

Many people are still in the dark when it comes to databases especially on law. However many of you complained that access to legal material on the Internet was still difficult and expensive.

Even the law software I reviewed in the article was said to be on the expensive side, what more in the current economic climate with the depreciation of the ringgit and imposition of GST although, as I understand it, law materials are educational materials and should not attract the GST. But I stand to be corrected. Nevertheless there is demand for something on the cheaper end. Having said that here is a treat for all readers of Borneo Post. Starting from this Monday you can enjoy access and experience research of legal material online free of charge for a period of 7 days until next Sunday.

All you need to do is log on to the Internet and search for the website bolehbahkalaukau.com.

Search it as one word. You will come across a menu of various law reports from all parts of the world.

Select the law report that is of interest to you and type your query whether it is the name of a judge, the parties to a case. The date of the decision or the court where the decision was made and the subject matter of the decision. The purpose of this exercise is for you to experience first hand how to research legal materials and law reports.

After completing the form press the “submit” button and your request should reach us by email. We expect all of you to have internet access but if for some reason you don’t or you suffer some physical disability you can nevertheless participate by completing the form below and sending it to fax no. 088-408111.

This free experience is for 7 days only as a gift to all the readers of this article and the Borneo Post. Depending on the nature and complexity of your query you should receive the response as soon as possible within 6 to 48 hours.

THE SEARCH TEMPLATE Full Name : Mobile Phone Email: Service Date: 3/21/15

Law Research Query:

Specify whether you are looking for a key word or a phrase or the name of a judge or the date of a decision etc.

*Select Your Source (you may only select 1 source for each query) Administrative Law Decisions Alberta Employment Standards Umpire Decisions Alberta Securities Commission Decisions All England Commercial Cases All England Law Reports All England Law Reports European Cases All England Reporter Butterworths Company Law Cases Butterworths Human Rights Cases Butterworths Local Government Reports Butterworths Medico-Legal Reports All Canadian Court Cases Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Decisions Alberta Environmental Appeal Board Decisions Alberta Grievance Arbitration Awards Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner Orders and Reports Alberta Judgments Alberta Labour Relations Board Reports Alberta Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal Decisions Costs Law Reports Criminal Appeal Case Summaries and Judgments* CSR Case Reports Current Tax Cases Customs Duties Cases EC Merger Decisions English Reports Estates Gazette – Archive Education Law Cases - Topical Employment Law Cases - Topical Canadian Native Law Reporter Environmental Law Cases – Topical Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada Cox & Palmer Oil & Gas NetLetter(TM) - Digests Computer Law Cases - Topical Motor Vehicle Reports

HOW TO SEARCH FOR OR RESEARCH A CASE

How does an ordinary person or a lawyer search for a case online or in a law report? What is the information you need to look for or to provide. The following is the extract of a court decision made by the Federal Court in 1981 in Kota Kinabalu known as Socooil Corporation Bhd v Ng Foo Chong & Anor.

I have made my own notes of explanation which can be distinguished by brackets.

1) [1981] 2 MLJ 7 (this is official notation of the case. 1981 indicates the year it was reported. 2 is the volume number of the reports. The volume is taken from MLJ which is an abbreviation of Malayan Law Journal which is one of the leading law journals in Malaysia. The number 7 is the seventh page where the case can be found and read. You can therefore search for a case by its official notation in the law reports)

2) SOCOOIL CORPORATION BHD v NG FOO CHONG & ANOR (this are the parties of the case the first named being the Plaintiff and the second named being the Defendant. So a another way to search for a case is by looking for the name of the parties whether as plaintiff or defendant or petitioner of respondent and so on)

3) FC KOTA KINABALU (this case was heard in Kota Kinabalu and FC means the Federal Court when it sat in Kota Kinabalu. You can search for a case by knowing whether it was decided in the High Court or Court of Appeal or Federal Court or House of Lords etc.)

4) LEE HUN HOE CJ (BORNEO), CHANG MIN TAT & SYED OTHMAN FJJ (these were the names of the Federal Court Judge. Yang Amat Arif Lee Hun Hoe9as he then was) has the words CJ (Borneo) as he was the the Chief Justice of Borneo at the time which position has now been renamed as the Chief Judge of Sabah & Sarawak. So another way to search for a case or decision is to look for the name of the judge or judges who made the decision. FJJ is the title accorded to the other judges which are both Federal Justices)

5) FEDERAL COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 59 OF 1980

6) 8 September 1980, 5 December 1980 (these 2 items no. 5 and 6 indicate firstly the case no. namely the actual number the case was recorded in the docket or files of the Court registry where the case is registered and secondly the dates of the court hearing or when the decision was made)

7) Trade Marks — “Golden Dragon” trade mark — Registered in Sabah by respondents — Application for order that said trade mark used in relation to goods not manufactured or distributed by respondents be deemed to be false trade description — Order made — Application to discharge order — Sabah Trade Marks Ordinance, ss 27, 52, 54 & 55 — Trade Descriptions Act, 1972, s 16 (these are what known as head notes or catchwords or keywords. They are kind of a legal shorthand to indicate what the cases is dealing with namely the legal issues and the subject matter. They are helpful to a person especially lawyers to find a case because of the volume of cases reported every day and every month. Knowing what the case is about in general and the laws and issues it is dealing with helps the finder to track the case.)

8) The respondents in 1976 had registered in Sabah the trade mark of “Golden Dragon” in respect of edible oil under the Sabah Trade Marks Ordinance. In 1978 certain cooking oils not of the respondent’s manufacture and bearing the identical trade mark of the “Golden Dragon” was sold in Sabah. The respondents applied ex parte for an order pursuant to section 16 of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1972 that the said trade mark of “Golden Dragon” used in relation to edible oils not manufactured by or distributed by the respondents shall be deemed for the purposes of the said Act to be a false trade description. The learned trial judge made the order in terms. Subsequently the appellants who claimed to have a proprietary interest in the trade mark of “Golden Dragon” applied to have the order discharged. They claimed to have started selling cooking oil in Malaysia under the “Golden Dragon” trade mark since 1976. The appellants had applied for registration of the trade mark in West Malaysia but as objection was raised by the respondents the mark had not been registered. The trial judge refused to discharge his previous order and the appellants appealed. (This is a summary of the facts of the case and the claim in court. They are another type of case summary because they are easier and faster to read than the actual grounds of judgment. Like item no. 7 above they are not done by the judges who decided the case but reporters of the law journal. They read and peruse the lengthy judgments and then write a synopsis of the facts of the case so that a lawyer of researcher will first read this summary to find whether the case is relevant before proceeding to read the actual judgment itself. These case summaries are very useful in time saving but unfortunately they are not done by the judges themselves but by third party law reporters. So although they are very helpful however they do not have the authority of law and are not part of the actual judgment or ruling. Nevertheless they are relied upon by judges, legal practitioners and other researchers of the law for finding cases. Yet it must be remembered they are not part of the official transcripts. They are summaries by third parties and further being summaries they cannot cover every aspect of a judgment.)

(9) Held: as the respondents were the proprietor of a registered trade mark in Sabah and they have shown that some other person was infringing the registered trade mark in the course of trade, they were entitled to the order declaring that the infringing trade mark was a false trade description. (Item no.9 fulfills the same function as item no.8 but instead of the facts they are a summary of the ruling or finding of the court of the judges. No 8 is a summary of facts but item no. 9 is a summary of the finding or what was held by the judges. However they do not have the authority of law and are not part of the actual judgment or ruling. Nevertheless they are relied upon by judges, legal practitioners and other researchers of the law for finding decisions. Yet it must be remembered and for the same reasons as set out in item no. 8 and also in respect of item no. 7 they are not part of the official transcripts. They are summaries by third parties and further being summaries they cannot cover every aspect of the ruling or judgment).

10) FEDERAL COURT

RR Sethu ( Low Chee Boon and Cecil Ian Robertson with him) for the appellants. Porres P Royan ( Gerard Math Lee Min with him) for the respondents. (in this part of the case report it sets out the name of the lawyers who acted for the parties) 11) LEE HUN HOE CJ (BORNEO)

(delivering the judgment of the Court): This appeal is against the refusal of the learned judge to discharge an order made by him earlier in respect of certain trade mark.

….HERE THE FULL GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT ARE SET OUT……….

In our judgment on the evidence before him the learned judge was right to make the order and to dismiss the application to discharge the said order. Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal with costs. Deposit to respondents on account of taxed costs. Appeal dismissed. Solicitors: Robertson Pang & Co; Shelley Yap Chong Chia & Co.

(Item 12 is actually the full and complete grounds of the judgment and the ruling and all other details of the case.

This authors of this part are the judge or judges who have heard the full case and delivered the judgment. Due to space constraints I have deleted most of the content of the ruling. They are the official transcript of the case proper.)

Welcome to the law @ the speed of thought and have a nice weekend. For more news go to the website @bolehbaukalaukau.com