Administrative Law
42 cases · January 2018 to July 2026
Case Volume by Year
4 18
1 21
1 23
2 24
9 25
25 26
2018–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Judicial review — Procedural fairness — Communication of administrative decisions — Duty to provide reasons — Legitimate expectation — Whether public authority proved revocation of applicant's rights had been effectively communicated — Whether reduction of compensation without disclosed reasons rendered decision unlawful and procedurally unfair — Judicial review allowed. 2 Prospective overruling — Federal Court decision in Ang Ming Lee — Non-retrospective effect — Application of Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2024] 8 CLJ 519 (Federal Court) — Preservation of pre-decision approvals 2 Limits of prospective overruling — Distinction between invalidity and retrospective disruption — Legal certainty — Reliance — Regulated housing framework 2 Nullity — Effect of unlawful administrative act — Whether void decisions may be disregarded — Requirement for judicial quashing — Operative effect until set aside 2 Supervisory jurisdiction — Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety — Independent public law grounds — Limits of Obata-Ambak 2 Judicial review — Dismissal of police officer — Whether the charge is duplicity and incomplete — Documents relevant for the charges to be given Administrative Law — Right to be heard — Oral representation Administrative Law — Compliance with regulation 35 and 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 Administrative Law — Failure to provide grounds of decision — Whether breach of natural justice Administrative Law — Doctrine of proportionality — Whether dismissal was harsh and unreasonable 2 Judicial review — Certiorari, mandamus and declaration — Whether refusal to renew mining lease unlawful — Only lessee entitled to apply for renewal — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66; Pahang Mineral Regulations 2005, reg 45(1), Form 8B — JR applications by Geonex are dismissed with costs. Administrative Law — Locus standi — Whether applicant without title had sufficient interest — when dealing with the issue of locus standi as propounded by the minority of the Federal Court in Tan Sri Hj Othman Saat v Mohamed Ismail [1982] 1 LNS 2; Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises [2023] 3 MLJ 829; Nik Elin Zurina v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 3 CLJ 323 Judicial Review — Scope of review — Process and merits — Limits of R Rama Chandran's application — Applicant failed to prove Jabatan Mineral and PTG Pahang's decision were tainted by irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters or perversity — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 MLJ 145; Petroliam Nasional Bhd v Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288 Mining Law — Renewal of mining lease — Prescribed statutory form requires declaration by registered lessee — Application filed by third party company — Rejection upheld and new lease issued to another entity — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66. 2 Judicial review — Order of certiorari to quash the certificates and alternatively a declaration that Certificates of conversion of three children borne out of civil marriage, were null and void — Certificates of conversion showing that the Registrar of Muallaf (‘the registrar’) had registered children as Muslims — Non-compliance of requirements for conversion to the religion of Islam — Whether the High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to review the administrative actions of the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate acting as public authorities in exercising statutory powers vested by the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 — Whether a child of a marriage under a civil marriage who has not attained the age of eighteen years must comply with both sections 96(1) and 106(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 before the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate may register the conversion to Islam of that child — Whether the mother and the father (if both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent before a certificate of conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 (‘the Perak Enactment’), ss 96 and 106;Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91], sections 23, 24 and 25 and the Schedule; Federal Constitution, arts 121 & 121(1A); Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164], Part VIII Protection of children; Rules of High Court 2012, Order 53 Family Law — Civil marriage — Husband converted to Islam on 11.3.2009 — They had three children — Husband obtained a custody order of the three children from the Shariah High Court — Youngest child was with the husband — Whether High Court is the Court that has jurisdiction and power to grant custody of children under civil marriage — High Court granted the wife custody of the three children — Whether a child of a civil marriage who has not attained the age of eighteen years must comply with both sections 96(1) and 106(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 before the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate may register the conversion to Islam of that child — Whether the mother and the father (if both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent before a certificate of conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 (‘the Perak Enactment’), ss 96 and 106; Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164], Part VIII Protection of children 2 Mandamus — Public duty — Mandatory order compelling public authority to make decision — Whether statutory duty prerequisite to relief — Distinction between compelling performance of public duty and compelling exercise of discretionary power — Whether court may compel authority to entertain request where statute imposes no obligation to decide — Mandamus refused in absence of enforceable statutory duty. 1 Mandatory injunction — Section 44 Specific Relief Act 1950 — Mandatory order against public authority — Requirement that act sought to be compelled be clearly incumbent under law — Whether State Authority under legal obligation to determine application for re-alienation — Whether relief available in absence of statutory duty. 1 Judicial review — Public law proceedings — Appropriate mode of commencement — Whether application to compel exercise of statutory function should be commenced under O 53 Rules of Court 2012 or by Originating Summons — Court assuming procedural propriety without deciding issue where substantive claim failed for absence of legal duty. 1 Judicial review — Leave to commence judicial review — Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 — Arguable case — Realistic prospect of success — Threshold for grant of leave — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court. 1 Judicial review — Strata Management Tribunal — Award of Tribunal — Certiorari — Prohibition — Stay of execution — Whether leave should operate as stay — Inter partes hearing for stay application. 1 Judicial review — Jurisdictional error — Incorrect identification of claimant — Misdescription of claimant — Legal identity of claimant — Locus standi — Competence of Tribunal — Whether arguable issue disclosed. 1 Judicial review — Procedural fairness — Failure to consider defence — Relevant considerations — Whether Tribunal failed to consider material issues raised by respondent — Arguable ground for judicial review. 1 Judicial review — Illegality — Irrationality — Natural justice — Scope of judicial review — Supervisory jurisdiction over statutory tribunals — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor. 1 Judicial review — Leave application — Threshold for leave — Arguable case — Whether application frivolous or vexatious — Whether Court should determine merits at leave stage — Order 53 rr 2(4), 3 Rules of Court 2012 Administrative Law — Judicial review — Public authority — Statutory university — Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka — Whether university exercising statutory powers under Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 — Whether amenable to judicial review Administrative Law — Judicial review — Reviewable decision — Meaning of “decision” — Whether decision affected legal rights or obligations — Distinction between reviewable legal decision and non-binding findings — Members of the Commission of Enquiry on the Video Clip Recording of Images of A Person Purported to be an Advocate and Solicitor Speaking on Telephone on Matters of Appointment of Judges v Tun Dato’ Seri Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato’ Sheikh Abdul Halim applied Administrative Law — Judicial review — University administration — Annual Performance Assessment (LPPT) — Performance appraisal of academic staff — Decision of Panel Pembangunan Sumber Manusia (PPSM) — Whether reviewable Administrative Law — Procedural fairness — Performance appraisal — Alleged failure to comply with mandatory administrative circulars — Pegawai Penilai Pertama (PPP) — Pegawai Penilai Kedua (PPK) — Requirement that PPP be of higher grade than Pegawai Yang Dinilai (PYD) — Performance discussions — Written justification for significant divergence in assessment Administrative Law — Procedural impropriety — Whether mandatory procedures contained in administrative circulars binding upon decision-maker — Failure to comply with own published procedures 1 Legitimate expectation — Internal administrative circulars — Published procedural framework — Media statement — Alleged expectation that no adverse consequences would arise from participation in staff petition Administrative Law — Natural justice — Performance evaluation — Reduction of marks for discipline and interpersonal relations — Absence of prior written notification of misconduct — Absence of disciplinary proceedings — Failure to provide reasons Administrative Law — Irrationality — Performance assessment — Whether assessment inconsistent with undisputed performance record — Historical LPPT scores exceeding 85% — Alleged inconsistency between appraisal and objective achievements Administrative Law — Relevant and irrelevant considerations — Alleged consideration of participation in UTeMASA petition and separate judicial review proceedings — Allegation of mala fide Administrative Law — Duty to give reasons — Performance appraisal — Significant divergence between first and second evaluators — Whether reasons required under administrative framework Employment — Public university — Academic staff — Annual performance assessment — LPPT — Sasaran Kerja Tahunan (SKT) — ePPTA — Administrative circulars governing performance evaluation Universities — Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka — Performance assessment framework — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 23 Tahun 2024 — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 45 Tahun 2024 — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 11 Tahun 2025 Remedies — Certiorari — Declaration — Mandamus — Judicial review — Leave to commence proceedings — Whether leave ought to be granted 1 Judicial review — Scope — Distinction between review and appeal — Relevant and irrelevant considerations — Internal dispute within cooperative — Procedural fairness — Duty to give reasons — Whether refusal of licence renewal amenable to judicial review. 1 Procedural impropriety — Failure to consider mandatory statutory considerations — Regulation 46(4)(a)-(d), Part VII Second Schedule, Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 — Whether disciplinary authority considered only existence of criminal charge — Whether non-consideration of mandatory factors rendered decision susceptible to judicial review. 1
+ 54 more
Prospective overruling — Federal Court decision in Ang Ming Lee — Non-retrospective effect — Application of Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2024] 8 CLJ 519 (Federal Court) — Preservation of pre-decision approvals 2 cases
ma-25-7-07-2024 1. ) CHEW YU XIANG 2. ) CHEW FUI KINN 3. ) CHEW MEOW CHEN 4. ) GOH HOCK THUAN 5. ) CHEW FUPENG 6. ) GOH WEI JIE 7. ) NUR ATIKAH BINTI ROSLI 8. ) JUSTIN ONG KHENG YANG 9. ) NG THENG EE 10. ) ROBENDRAN A/L PUCHANDRAN 11. ) ARIF QUSYAIRI BIN BUSTAMI 12. ) ALICIA TENG HUI CHING 13. ) AZLAN SHAH BIN MOHAMED AMALI 14. ) HARZIRA BINTI HARUN 15. ) LIM CHUIN RONG 16. ) SENG LOO CHIN 17. ) ONG KIEN GHEE 18. ) TAN GEOK YEONG 19. ) JUMARI BIN KASMIN 20. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 21. ) TEA WEE LONG 22...
27 April 2026
ma-25-9-08-2024 1. ) GAN MAY PING 2. ) MUHAMMAD SAFUAN BIN SETH 3. ) CHIA KOK HOONG 4. ) SOH ENG GEOK 5. ) KONG KAH SOON 6. ) LIAW LIN LEE 7. ) TEOH CHOON HEA 8. ) SIEW HUEY MING 9. ) CHAN WEY SHEN 10. ) NURJANNAH ZAIHA BINTI HAMZAH 11. ) GOH SEE JAU 12. ) WAHIDANOOR BT WAHID 13. ) TAY CHAU HWEE 14. ) ARNIE SHAZLEEN BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN 15. ) MARINA TAN BINTI MOHD ROSS TAN 16. ) LEE ENG KIAT 17. ) LEE KOK HENG 18. ) CHONG KAH WEI 19. ) LIM HON YOONG 20. ) TAN PING 21. ) LEE YOONG SING 22. ) LEE CHONG HWAI 23. ...
27 April 2026
Limits of prospective overruling — Distinction between invalidity and retrospective disruption — Legal certainty — Reliance — Regulated housing framework 2 cases
ma-25-7-07-2024 1. ) CHEW YU XIANG 2. ) CHEW FUI KINN 3. ) CHEW MEOW CHEN 4. ) GOH HOCK THUAN 5. ) CHEW FUPENG 6. ) GOH WEI JIE 7. ) NUR ATIKAH BINTI ROSLI 8. ) JUSTIN ONG KHENG YANG 9. ) NG THENG EE 10. ) ROBENDRAN A/L PUCHANDRAN 11. ) ARIF QUSYAIRI BIN BUSTAMI 12. ) ALICIA TENG HUI CHING 13. ) AZLAN SHAH BIN MOHAMED AMALI 14. ) HARZIRA BINTI HARUN 15. ) LIM CHUIN RONG 16. ) SENG LOO CHIN 17. ) ONG KIEN GHEE 18. ) TAN GEOK YEONG 19. ) JUMARI BIN KASMIN 20. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 21. ) TEA WEE LONG 22...
27 April 2026
ma-25-9-08-2024 1. ) GAN MAY PING 2. ) MUHAMMAD SAFUAN BIN SETH 3. ) CHIA KOK HOONG 4. ) SOH ENG GEOK 5. ) KONG KAH SOON 6. ) LIAW LIN LEE 7. ) TEOH CHOON HEA 8. ) SIEW HUEY MING 9. ) CHAN WEY SHEN 10. ) NURJANNAH ZAIHA BINTI HAMZAH 11. ) GOH SEE JAU 12. ) WAHIDANOOR BT WAHID 13. ) TAY CHAU HWEE 14. ) ARNIE SHAZLEEN BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN 15. ) MARINA TAN BINTI MOHD ROSS TAN 16. ) LEE ENG KIAT 17. ) LEE KOK HENG 18. ) CHONG KAH WEI 19. ) LIM HON YOONG 20. ) TAN PING 21. ) LEE YOONG SING 22. ) LEE CHONG HWAI 23. ...
27 April 2026
Nullity — Effect of unlawful administrative act — Whether void decisions may be disregarded — Requirement for judicial quashing — Operative effect until set aside 2 cases
ma-25-7-07-2024 1. ) CHEW YU XIANG 2. ) CHEW FUI KINN 3. ) CHEW MEOW CHEN 4. ) GOH HOCK THUAN 5. ) CHEW FUPENG 6. ) GOH WEI JIE 7. ) NUR ATIKAH BINTI ROSLI 8. ) JUSTIN ONG KHENG YANG 9. ) NG THENG EE 10. ) ROBENDRAN A/L PUCHANDRAN 11. ) ARIF QUSYAIRI BIN BUSTAMI 12. ) ALICIA TENG HUI CHING 13. ) AZLAN SHAH BIN MOHAMED AMALI 14. ) HARZIRA BINTI HARUN 15. ) LIM CHUIN RONG 16. ) SENG LOO CHIN 17. ) ONG KIEN GHEE 18. ) TAN GEOK YEONG 19. ) JUMARI BIN KASMIN 20. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 21. ) TEA WEE LONG 22...
27 April 2026
ma-25-9-08-2024 1. ) GAN MAY PING 2. ) MUHAMMAD SAFUAN BIN SETH 3. ) CHIA KOK HOONG 4. ) SOH ENG GEOK 5. ) KONG KAH SOON 6. ) LIAW LIN LEE 7. ) TEOH CHOON HEA 8. ) SIEW HUEY MING 9. ) CHAN WEY SHEN 10. ) NURJANNAH ZAIHA BINTI HAMZAH 11. ) GOH SEE JAU 12. ) WAHIDANOOR BT WAHID 13. ) TAY CHAU HWEE 14. ) ARNIE SHAZLEEN BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN 15. ) MARINA TAN BINTI MOHD ROSS TAN 16. ) LEE ENG KIAT 17. ) LEE KOK HENG 18. ) CHONG KAH WEI 19. ) LIM HON YOONG 20. ) TAN PING 21. ) LEE YOONG SING 22. ) LEE CHONG HWAI 23. ...
27 April 2026
Supervisory jurisdiction — Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety — Independent public law grounds — Limits of Obata-Ambak 2 cases
ma-25-7-07-2024 1. ) CHEW YU XIANG 2. ) CHEW FUI KINN 3. ) CHEW MEOW CHEN 4. ) GOH HOCK THUAN 5. ) CHEW FUPENG 6. ) GOH WEI JIE 7. ) NUR ATIKAH BINTI ROSLI 8. ) JUSTIN ONG KHENG YANG 9. ) NG THENG EE 10. ) ROBENDRAN A/L PUCHANDRAN 11. ) ARIF QUSYAIRI BIN BUSTAMI 12. ) ALICIA TENG HUI CHING 13. ) AZLAN SHAH BIN MOHAMED AMALI 14. ) HARZIRA BINTI HARUN 15. ) LIM CHUIN RONG 16. ) SENG LOO CHIN 17. ) ONG KIEN GHEE 18. ) TAN GEOK YEONG 19. ) JUMARI BIN KASMIN 20. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 21. ) TEA WEE LONG 22...
27 April 2026
ma-25-9-08-2024 1. ) GAN MAY PING 2. ) MUHAMMAD SAFUAN BIN SETH 3. ) CHIA KOK HOONG 4. ) SOH ENG GEOK 5. ) KONG KAH SOON 6. ) LIAW LIN LEE 7. ) TEOH CHOON HEA 8. ) SIEW HUEY MING 9. ) CHAN WEY SHEN 10. ) NURJANNAH ZAIHA BINTI HAMZAH 11. ) GOH SEE JAU 12. ) WAHIDANOOR BT WAHID 13. ) TAY CHAU HWEE 14. ) ARNIE SHAZLEEN BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN 15. ) MARINA TAN BINTI MOHD ROSS TAN 16. ) LEE ENG KIAT 17. ) LEE KOK HENG 18. ) CHONG KAH WEI 19. ) LIM HON YOONG 20. ) TAN PING 21. ) LEE YOONG SING 22. ) LEE CHONG HWAI 23. ...
27 April 2026
Judicial review — Dismissal of police officer — Whether the charge is duplicity and incomplete — Documents relevant for the charges to be given Administrative Law — Right to be heard — Oral representation Administrative Law — Compliance with regulation 35 and 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 Administrative Law — Failure to provide grounds of decision — Whether breach of natural justice Administrative Law — Doctrine of proportionality — Whether dismissal was harsh and unreasonable 2 cases
Judicial review — Certiorari, mandamus and declaration — Whether refusal to renew mining lease unlawful — Only lessee entitled to apply for renewal — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66; Pahang Mineral Regulations 2005, reg 45(1), Form 8B — JR applications by Geonex are dismissed with costs. Administrative Law — Locus standi — Whether applicant without title had sufficient interest — when dealing with the issue of locus standi as propounded by the minority of the Federal Court in Tan Sri Hj Othman Saat v Mohamed Ismail [1982] 1 LNS 2; Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises [2023] 3 MLJ 829; Nik Elin Zurina v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 3 CLJ 323 Judicial Review — Scope of review — Process and merits — Limits of R Rama Chandran's application — Applicant failed to prove Jabatan Mineral and PTG Pahang's decision were tainted by irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters or perversity — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 MLJ 145; Petroliam Nasional Bhd v Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288 Mining Law — Renewal of mining lease — Prescribed statutory form requires declaration by registered lessee — Application filed by third party company — Rejection upheld and new lease issued to another entity — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66. 2 cases
Judicial review — Public law proceedings — Appropriate mode of commencement — Whether application to compel exercise of statutory function should be commenced under O 53 Rules of Court 2012 or by Originating Summons — Court assuming procedural propriety without deciding issue where substantive claim failed for absence of legal duty. 1 case
Judicial review — Leave to commence judicial review — Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 — Arguable case — Realistic prospect of success — Threshold for grant of leave — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court. 1 case
Judicial review — Strata Management Tribunal — Award of Tribunal — Certiorari — Prohibition — Stay of execution — Whether leave should operate as stay — Inter partes hearing for stay application. 1 case
Judicial review — Jurisdictional error — Incorrect identification of claimant — Misdescription of claimant — Legal identity of claimant — Locus standi — Competence of Tribunal — Whether arguable issue disclosed. 1 case
Judicial review — Procedural fairness — Failure to consider defence — Relevant considerations — Whether Tribunal failed to consider material issues raised by respondent — Arguable ground for judicial review. 1 case
Judicial review — Illegality — Irrationality — Natural justice — Scope of judicial review — Supervisory jurisdiction over statutory tribunals — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor. 1 case
Legitimate expectation — Internal administrative circulars — Published procedural framework — Media statement — Alleged expectation that no adverse consequences would arise from participation in staff petition Administrative Law — Natural justice — Performance evaluation — Reduction of marks for discipline and interpersonal relations — Absence of prior written notification of misconduct — Absence of disciplinary proceedings — Failure to provide reasons Administrative Law — Irrationality — Performance assessment — Whether assessment inconsistent with undisputed performance record — Historical LPPT scores exceeding 85% — Alleged inconsistency between appraisal and objective achievements Administrative Law — Relevant and irrelevant considerations — Alleged consideration of participation in UTeMASA petition and separate judicial review proceedings — Allegation of mala fide Administrative Law — Duty to give reasons — Performance appraisal — Significant divergence between first and second evaluators — Whether reasons required under administrative framework Employment — Public university — Academic staff — Annual performance assessment — LPPT — Sasaran Kerja Tahunan (SKT) — ePPTA — Administrative circulars governing performance evaluation Universities — Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka — Performance assessment framework — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 23 Tahun 2024 — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 45 Tahun 2024 — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 11 Tahun 2025 Remedies — Certiorari — Declaration — Mandamus — Judicial review — Leave to commence proceedings — Whether leave ought to be granted 1 case
Judicial review — Scope — Distinction between review and appeal — Relevant and irrelevant considerations — Internal dispute within cooperative — Procedural fairness — Duty to give reasons — Whether refusal of licence renewal amenable to judicial review. 1 case
Relevant considerations — Statutory discretion — Interdiction pending criminal proceedings — Requirement to consider connection between offence and official duties — Possibility of prejudice to statutory body’s image — Whether officer’s presence would hamper investigations — Whether statutory preconditions complied with. 1 case
Certiorari — Mandamus — Declaration — Leave to apply — Challenge against interdiction order — Whether leave ought to be granted. 1 case
Disciplinary Board — Duty to give reasons — Section 103D(1) Legal Profession Act 1976 — Failure to record reasons for rejecting Disciplinary Committee's findings — Whether decision irrational and perverse — Wednesbury unreasonableness 1 case
Judicial review — Leave application — Ex parte application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings — Whether award of Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna amenable to judicial review — Order 53 r 3 Rules of Court 2012 1 case
Judicial review — Leave threshold — Whether application frivolous or disclosed arguable case fit for substantive hearing — Low threshold for leave — Applicability of WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd 1 case
Judicial review — Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna — Consumer tribunal award — Award directing applicant company to pay consumer for vehicle repair costs — Whether tribunal allegedly failed to consider recorded agreement, material evidence and contractual warranty terms 1 case
Judicial review — Grounds of review — Illegality — Irrationality — Procedural impropriety — Whether tribunal acted inconsistently with recorded settlement and evidence before it — Whether tribunal asked itself wrong question or failed to consider relevant considerations 1 case
Judicial review — Amenability — Whether statutory finality clause and exclusion of appeal under Consumer Protection Act 1999 ousted supervisory jurisdiction of High Court — Sections 116 and 117 Consumer Protection Act 1999 1 case
Judicial review — Locus standi — “Adversely affected” test — Whether applicant company directly affected by monetary award had standing under Order 53 r 2(4) Rules of Court 2012 1 case
Key Statutes
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 10 cases Federal Constitution
cited in 9 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 4 cases Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 2 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 2 cases Peaceful Assembly Act 2012
cited in 1 case Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Cap 177)
cited in 1 case Criminal Procedure Code
cited in 1 case Kelantan Mineral Enactment 2001
cited in 1 case Mineral Enactment
cited in 1 case Mineral Enactment 2001
cited in 1 case Strata Titles Act 1985 (Cap 318)
cited in 1 case Legal Profession Act 1976 (Cap 166)
cited in 1 case National Land Code
cited in 1 case Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Cap 486)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan 14 Ramly bin Haji Ali 3 Panglima Richard Malanjum 3 Kalyana Kumar Sockalingam 3 Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff 3 Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 3 Zainun binti Ali 2 Seri Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin 2 Abu Samah bin Nordin 2 Ahmad bin Haji Maarop 2 Zaharah binti Ibrahim 2 Mohd Radzi bin Harun 2 Moh Kok Wai 2 Samry bin Masri 2 Shamsul Bahrin bin Abdul Manaf 2
Top Firms
Lim Wei Jiet 2 Manian Nair & Co. 2 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Melaka 2 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Terengganu 2 Attorney General's Chambers 1 Yeoh Mazlina & Partners 1 Jeffrey Tan & Chng 1 Shearn Delamore 1 Abhilaash Subramaniam & Co 1 Lee & Poh Partnership 1 Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership 1 V.M. Muthu & Co 1 Jay & Jay 1 Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri 1 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pahang 1
Top Lawyers
Lim Wei Jiet 2 Ebrina bin Zubir 2 Izzatul Nawwarah binti Idrus 2 Dato' Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar 1 Abraham Au Tian Hui 1 New Sin Yew 1 Nevyn Vinosh Venudran 1 Joshua Tay H'ng Foong 1 Vam Shir Mooi 1 Beatrice Chin Yuen Xin 1 Yap Pui Yi 1 Mohamad Iskandar Ahmad 1 Tetralina Ahmed Fauzi 1 Anand Raj 1 Abhilaash Subramaniam 1
Cases
Page 2 of 2jb-25-2-03-2025
YESYURUN A/L CHANDRAN v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA , POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS DAREAH JOHOR BAHRU SELATAN, JOHOR
24 November 2025
MYHC
wa-24ncvc-4892-12-2024
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA ARTE PLUS @ JALAN AMPANG v 1. ) AMPANG PROPERTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) N JAYA SDN. BHD.
23 November 2025
MYHC
jb-25-4-03-2024
MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN UMAR v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
30 September 2025
MYHC
jb-25-6-03-2024
MOHD SAIFUL RAZIEE BIN TUKIMAN v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
30 September 2025
MYHC
ja-25-20-08-2022
P. SARASWATI A/P S. PERIASAMY v MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD
17 September 2025
MYHC
ca-25-5-09-2023
GEONEX (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) Pengarah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 2. ) ECOSTRENGTH SDN BHD
2 July 2025
MYHC
ca-25-7-07-2024
GEONEX (M) SDN. BHD. v 1. ) JABATAN MINERAL DAN GEOSAINS PAHANG 2. ) PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG
2 July 2025
MYHC
06rj-1-08-2024w
AMIR HARIRI BIN ABD HADI v Pendakwa Raya [Jabatan Peguam Negara]
30 June 2025
MYFC
n-01ncvca-460-06-2022
CEMPAKA MEWAH SDN BHD (In Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation) (Liquidator appointed on 17.4.2003) c/o KPMG CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING PLT v PENGARAH UKUR DAN PEMETAAN NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS
24 March 2025
MYCOA
wa-25-363-12-2020
ABDUL SOMAD BIN YAHYA v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
26 December 2024
MYHC
wa-25-179-04-2024
1. ) SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN 2. ) NAJIB BIN ABU NAWAR 3. ) MOHD BAKIRUDIN BIN HAJI ABDULLAH 4. ) MUHAMAD FADZLY BIN BISRI v 1. ) PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
23 December 2024
MYHC
wa-25-73-03-2021
MARIA CHIN BINTI ABDULLAH v 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAWIP) 3. ) JABATAN KEHAKIMAN SYARIAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR
5 December 2023
MYHC
21ncvc-21-04-2020
1. Sakhti Devi a/p Muniandy@Segaran [NRIC No.: 810407-14-5952] 2. Letchumy a/p Subramaniam [NRIC No.: 791103-10-5950] v 1. Mehar Banu binti Pakeer Mohammad [NRIC No.: 690116-10-5914] 2. Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah Kuala Selangor 3. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia 4. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran Malaysia 5. Kerajaan Malaysia
30 March 2021
MYHC
rayuan-sivil-no-01-37-08-2017p
VIJAYARAO A/L SEPERMANIAM v SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA
15 August 2018
MYFC
rs-01f-23-07-2016w
Rokiah binti Mhd Noor v 1. ) Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan Malaysia 2. ) Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia 3. ) Kementerian PDNKP Malaysia 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
11 March 2018
MYFC
01f-17-06-2016-a-01f-18-06-2016-a-01f-19-06-2016-a
Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v 1. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak 2. Pendaftar Mualaf 3. Kerajaan Negeri Perak 1. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia 2. Kerajaan Malaysia Patmanathan a/l Krishnan PIHAK KETIGA Majlis Peguam Malaysia Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia. Association of Women Lawyers.
28 January 2018
MYFC
01f-17-06-2016-a-01f-18-06-2016-a
Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v 1. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak 2. Pendaftar Mualaf 3. Kerajaan Negeri Perak 1. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia 2. Kerajaan Malaysia Pathmanathan a/l Krishnan PIHAK KETIGA Majls Peguam Malaysia Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia Association of Women Lawyers
28 January 2018
MYFC