B Surinder Singh Kanda v The Government of The Federation of Malaya

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtPrivy Council
Judgment Date1962
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
271 cases
  • R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St. Germain (No. 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • Szbly v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Stevenson v United Road Transport Union
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 January 1977
    ...was not enough to tell the Plaintiff in sufficient detail the nature of all the charges he had to meet. 48 As was pointed out in Kanda v. Government of Malaya, 1962 Appeal Cases, 322 at 337, if the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a rig......
  • Stennett (Elma) v Attorney General
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court
    • 11 November 2005
    ...to which Mrs. Stennett had not been given the opportunity to respond. The words of Lord Denning in the Privy Council case of Kanda v. Govt, of Malaya [1962] 2 WLR 1153 are applicable. "...[W]hoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Her treatment at and around the meeting was deplorable: might safeguarding itself constitute abuse?
    • United Kingdom
    • The Journal of Adult Protection Nbr. 15-2, April 2013
    • 5 April 2013
    ...Government (2010), The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities)Regulations 2010,OPSI, London.Kanda v. Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322.Law Commission (2011), Adult Social Care, Law Commission, London.Lloyd v. McMahon [1987] AC 652.Nadarajah v. Secretary of State for the Home......
  • Interpreters and fairness in administrative hearings.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 40 Nbr. 2, January 2017
    • 1 January 2017
    ...which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him': Kanda v Malaya [1962] AC 322, (60) The vital role of notice has long been stressed: see, eg, R v Small Claims Tribunal; Ex parte Cameron [1976] VR 427, 432 (Anderson J) (de......

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