《1950年马来西亚证据法》下特权沟通规则的发展

M. Yunus
{"title":"《1950年马来西亚证据法》下特权沟通规则的发展","authors":"M. Yunus","doi":"10.25041/iplr.v3i2.2511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is observed that if there is a civil dispute between the parties, they may try to settle it outside court, for example, by using the process of alternative dispute resolution. When there is actual cause of action between the parties, the settlement might be done through negotiations. If such negotiation settlement fails, they might bring the matter to the court and if any party wants to admit the damaging statements made during the negotiation, these statements or communications are privileged as “without prejudice communication” under s. 23 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950.The issue is whether the law requires some changes and new mechanism to adapt ‘without prejudice’ privilege at present. Is the rule absolute? What are the exceptions that have been ruled out by the Court which can be considered as the limitations of the rule? The objective of this paper is to discuss the matters","PeriodicalId":52582,"journal":{"name":"Indonesia Private Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE UNDER THE MALAYSIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1950\",\"authors\":\"M. Yunus\",\"doi\":\"10.25041/iplr.v3i2.2511\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is observed that if there is a civil dispute between the parties, they may try to settle it outside court, for example, by using the process of alternative dispute resolution. When there is actual cause of action between the parties, the settlement might be done through negotiations. If such negotiation settlement fails, they might bring the matter to the court and if any party wants to admit the damaging statements made during the negotiation, these statements or communications are privileged as “without prejudice communication” under s. 23 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950.The issue is whether the law requires some changes and new mechanism to adapt ‘without prejudice’ privilege at present. Is the rule absolute? What are the exceptions that have been ruled out by the Court which can be considered as the limitations of the rule? The objective of this paper is to discuss the matters\",\"PeriodicalId\":52582,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indonesia Private Law Review\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indonesia Private Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25041/iplr.v3i2.2511\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesia Private Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25041/iplr.v3i2.2511","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

据观察,如果当事方之间有民事纠纷,他们可以尝试在法庭外解决,例如,通过使用替代性争端解决程序。当事人之间有实际事由时,可以通过协商解决。如果这种谈判解决失败,他们可能会将此事提交法院,如果任何一方想要承认在谈判期间所作的破坏性陈述,这些陈述或通信根据《1950年马来西亚证据法》第23条享有“无偏见通信”的特权。现在的问题是,法律是否需要进行一些修改,并建立新的机制来适应目前的“无偏见”特权。这个规则是绝对的吗?法院排除的可被视为规则限制的例外情况有哪些?本文的目的是讨论这些问题
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE UNDER THE MALAYSIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1950
It is observed that if there is a civil dispute between the parties, they may try to settle it outside court, for example, by using the process of alternative dispute resolution. When there is actual cause of action between the parties, the settlement might be done through negotiations. If such negotiation settlement fails, they might bring the matter to the court and if any party wants to admit the damaging statements made during the negotiation, these statements or communications are privileged as “without prejudice communication” under s. 23 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950.The issue is whether the law requires some changes and new mechanism to adapt ‘without prejudice’ privilege at present. Is the rule absolute? What are the exceptions that have been ruled out by the Court which can be considered as the limitations of the rule? The objective of this paper is to discuss the matters
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信