LAW / Referencing for Law Students / AGLC 3rd ed
.pdf
Australian Guide to Legal Citation 221
18.2Legislative Materials
18.2.1Principal and Delegated Legislation
Rule Hong Kong principal and delegated legislation should be cited in accordance with rules 3.1–3.4. However:
•no year should be included;
•the jurisdiction should appear as ‘(Hong Kong)’; and
•a chapter number should be included after the jurisdiction.
The chapter number should appear as follows:
cap Chapter Number (for example, ‘cap 3’).
Where a pinpoint reference is included, the chapter number should be followed by a comma.
Where principal or delegated legislation has not been allocated a chapter number (or when citing principal or delegated legislation historically, as enacted) the year should be included.
Examples Evidence Ordinance (Hong Kong) cap 8, s 4.
Dogs and Cats Regulations (Hong Kong) cap 167A, reg 22.
Rules of the High Court (Hong Kong) cap 4A.
Telephone Ordinance 1925 (Hong Kong).
Note A piece of primary legislation in Hong Kong is usually called an ‘ordinance’.
18.2.2Constitution
Rule |
The Hong Kong Constitution should be cited as follows: |
|
|
Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
People’s Republic of China Pinpoint .
Example Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China s 4.
Kong Hong
222
19 Malaysia
19.1Cases
19.1.1General Rule
Rule Malaysian cases should be cited in accordance with chapter 2. However:
•the names of individuals (both parties and judicial officers) should generally appear in full; and
•abbreviations of judicial titles should appear as they do in the case cited (but should adhere to rule 1.6.1, so full stops should not be used in abbreviations).
‘Sendirian Berhad’ (an expression indicating incorporation) should be abbreviated ‘Sdn Bhd’ in parties’ names. ‘Datuk’ (approximately equivalent to ‘Sir’) and ‘Haji’ (a religious status) should always be omitted from parties’ names.
Examples Ratna Ammal v Tan Chow Soo (1964) 30 MLJ 24.
Achieva Technology Sdn Bhd v Lam Yen Ling [2009] 8 MLJ 625 (High Court).
Notes When citing cases from foreign jurisdictions, it may be useful to include the name of the court in a citation (in accordance with rule 2.6).
Names of individuals should generally appear in full in Malaysian decisions to ensure that individuals are unambiguously identified. If given names are not necessary to identify an individual, they may be omitted.
19.1.2Report Series
Rule In Malaysia, the most commonly used and authoritative law report series is the Malayan Law Journal (abbreviated ‘MLJ’), which should be cited where possible.
Australian Guide to Legal Citation 223
Where a case is not reported in the MLJ, the Current Law Journal (abbreviated ‘CLJ’) should be cited where possible.
Examples Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v The Search [1994] 3 MLJ 127, 140 (Visu Sinnadurai J) (High Court of Malaya).
TAM Abdul Aziz & Co v Shamsudeen (1951) 17 MLJ 141, 141 (Murray-Aynsley CJ) (Court of Appeal).
PP v Segaran S Mathavan [2010] 2 CLJ 121 (High Court of Malaya).
Note The Malayan Law Journal contains both journal articles and cases from the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court. Until 1965, volumes of the Malayan Law Journal were organised by volume. From 1966, the volumes are organised by year.
19.1.3Unreported Cases
Rule Unreported Malaysian decisions should be cited in accordance with rule 2.8.2.
Example Mohamed Musa bin Amanullah v Public Prosecutor (Unreported, Malaysian Court of Appeal, Hasan Lah, Sulong Matjeraie and Mohd Hishamudin Yunus JJCA, 1 March 2010) [45]–[46].
Note Although some online databases do so, Malaysian courts do not allocate medium neutral citations. Medium neutral citations should thus not be used for unreported Malaysian cases, in accordance with rule 2.8.1.
19.2Legislative Materials
19.2.1Statutes and Delegated Legislation
Rule Malaysian statutes and delegated legislation should be cited in accordance with chapter 3. The jurisdiction should appear as ‘(Malaysia)’.
Malaysia
224 Part V — Foreign Domestic Materials
Examples Copyright Act 1987 (Malaysia) s 7.
Digital Signature Regulations 1998 (Malaysia) reg 58(a).
19.2.2Constitution
|
|
Rule |
|
The Malaysian Constitution should be cited as follows: |
||
|
|
|
|
Federal Constitution (Malaysia) |
|
. |
|
|
|
|
Pinpoint |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example |
|
Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 5. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
225
20 New Zealand
20.1Cases
20.1.1General Rule
|
|
Rule |
|
New Zealand cases should be cited in accordance with chapter 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example |
|
Haylock v Patek [2009] 1 NZLR 351. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note |
|
When citing cases from foreign jurisdictions, it may be useful to |
|
|
|
|
include the name of the court in a citation (in accordance with |
|
|
|
|
rule 2.6). |
|
|
|
|
|
20.1.2Official and Unofficial Report Series
|
Rule |
The New Zealand Law Reports (abbreviated ‘NZLR’), which are |
|
|
authorised, should be cited where possible in accordance with |
|
|
rule 2.3.1. |
|
|
Where a case is not reported in the NZLR, an unofficial report series |
|
|
should be cited (where available). |
|
|
|
|
Examples |
Arbitrators’ Institute of New Zealand Inc v Legal Services Board |
|
|
[1995] NZAR 49, 51–2 (Heron J) (High Court). |
|
|
Brintons Ltd v Feltex Furnishings of New Zealand Ltd (1990) 3 |
|
|
NZBLC ¶99-189, 101 761. |
|
|
|
20.1.3Unreported Cases
Rule Where a case is unreported and has been assigned a medium neutral citation by the court, it should be cited in accordance with rule 2.8.1. The following medium neutral unique court identifiers should be used from the years indicated:
New
Zealand
226 Part V — Foreign Domestic Materials
Examples
Note
Court |
|
Unique Court Identifier |
|
Years |
|
|
|
|
|
New Zealand Supreme Court |
|
NZSC |
|
2005– |
New Zealand Court of Appeal |
|
NZCA |
|
2007– |
Other unreported New Zealand decisions (including unreported decisions of the High Court of New Zealand) should be cited in accordance with rule 2.8.2.
Ludgater Holdings Ltd v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd
[2009] NZSC 131 (16 December 2009) [1].
Lowe v New Zealand Police (Unreported, High Court of New Zealand, Clifford J, 2 March 2010) [11]–[12].
Some New Zealand tribunals also assign medium neutral citations to their decisions. Such medium neutral citations should be used only where the tribunal itself has assigned that citation.
20.1.4Māori Land Court and Māori Appellate Court
Rule Decisions of the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court should be cited as follows:
Parties’ Names — Block Name ( Year ) Case Number Registry 
Minute Book Abbreviation 
Starting Page , Pinpoint .
Parties’ names should be separated by ‘v’. The block name should be included only where it appears in the decision. The following abbreviations should be used for the minute book abbreviation:
Type of Minute Book |
|
Abbreviation |
|
|
|
Minute Book |
|
MB |
Appellate Court Minute Book |
|
ACMB |
Chief Judge’s Minute Book |
|
CJMB |
Where minute book references are unavailable, Māori Land Court and Māori Appellate Court decisions should be cited as unreported decisions (in accordance with rule 2.8).
Pinpoint references should adhere to rule 2.5. Judges’ names should adhere to rule 2.9.1.
Australian Guide to Legal Citation 227
Examples O’Rorke v Hohaia — Pukekohatu 7B Block (2006) 173 Aotea MB 114, 117 [12]–[13] (Judge Harvey).
Taipari v Hauraki Maori Trust Board (2008) 114 Hauraki MB 75.
Note The block name is usually preceded by ‘In the matter of’ in Māori Land Court and Māori Appellate Court decisions. Minute books are divided according to registry.
20.1.5Waitangi Tribunal
Rule |
Reports of the Waitangi Tribunal should be cited as follows: |
|
|
Waitangi Tribunal, Title of Report ( Year ).
The ‘Wai number’ (sometimes used to identify reports of the Waitangi Tribunal) should not be included.
Example Waitangi Tribunal, Maori Electoral Option Report (1994).
New
Zealand
20.2Legislative Materials
20.2.1Legislation
Rule New Zealand legislation should be cited in accordance with rule 3.1. The jurisdiction should be abbreviated ‘NZ’.
Example Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (NZ).
228 Part V — Foreign Domestic Materials
20.2.2Delegated Legislation
Rule
Example
New Zealand delegated legislation should be cited in accordance with rule 3.3. However, the statutory rule number should be included after the jurisdiction and followed by a comma. It should appear in the form:
SR Year / Instrument Number
(for example, ‘SR 2004/225’).
Electronic Transactions Regulations 2003 (NZ) SR 2003/288, reg 4.
20.3Other
Rule For further information on the citation of New Zealand materials, see the latest edition of the New Zealand Law Style Guide.
229
21 Singapore
21.1Cases
21.1.1General Rule
Rule Singaporean cases should be cited in accordance with chapter 2. However:
•names of individuals (both parties and judicial officers) should generally appear in full; and
•‘Proprietary Limited’ is abbreviated ‘Pte Ltd’ (not ‘Pty Ltd’) for Singaporean companies.
Examples Re Econ Corp Ltd [2004] 1 SLR 273.
Lim Choo Suan v Goh Kok Hwa [2009] 4 SLR 193, 201–2 [15]–[16] (Woo Bih Li J) (High Court).
Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority [2009] 2 SLR 558, 563 (Court of Appeal).
Notes When citing cases from foreign jurisdictions, it may be useful to include the name of the court in a citation (in accordance with rule 2.6).
Names of individuals should generally appear in full in Singaporean decisions to ensure that individuals are unambiguously identified. If given names are not necessary to identify an individual, they may be omitted.
21.1.2Report Series
Rule The most commonly used and authoritative report series for cases from 1965 is the Singapore Law Reports (abbreviated ‘SLR’), which should be cited where available. For cases prior to 1965, the Malayan Law Journal (abbreviated ‘MLJ’) should be cited where available.
Singapore
230 Part V — Foreign Domestic Materials
Examples PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen Air [2002] 1 SLR 393.
Loo Seong Thye v Goh Teik Yah (1964) 30 MLJ 346.
21.1.3Unreported Cases
Rule
Examples
Note
Where a decision is unreported and has been assigned a medium neutral citation by the court, it should be cited in accordance with rule 2.8.1. The following unique court identifiers should be used:
|
Court |
|
Unique Court |
|
Years |
|
|
|
|
Identifier |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court of Singapore — |
|
SGCA |
|
2003– |
|
|
Court of Appeal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court of Singapore — |
|
SGHC |
|
2003– |
|
|
High Court |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Singapore District Court |
|
SGDC |
|
2001– |
|
|
Singapore Magistrates’ Court |
|
SGMC |
|
2001– |
|
|
Singapore Juvenile Court |
|
SGJC |
|
2001– |
|
|
Singapore Small Claims Tribunal |
|
SGSCT |
|
2001– |
|
Other unreported Singaporean decisions should be cited in accordance with rule 2.8.2.
Orient Centre Investments Ltd v Société Générale [2007] SGCA 24 (9 May 2007).
Ong v Lim Lie Hoa [2008] SGHC 44 (25 March 2008) [8] (Choo Han Teck J).
Public Prosecutor v Zhang Jing [2006] SGDC 82 (3 May 2006) [17]– [19].
The Supreme Court of Singapore consists of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.