DR. GEOFFREY ALAN WILLIAMS 1. ) DR TIKFU GEE 2. ) MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA

DR. GEOFFREY ALAN WILLIAMS 1. ) DR TIKFU GEE 2. ) MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA

Appeal dismissed because appellant, as a failed complainant, lacked locus standi and no disciplinary order was made against him so Part IV did not confer a right of appeal; additionally the saving/transitional provision meant the repeal of s31(2) did not operate retrospectively for alleged misconduct in 2015, preserving finality of the High Court decision.

Citation
W-01(IM)-458-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Dr Geoffrey Alan Williams; 1st Respondent: Dr Tikfu Gee; 2nd Respondent: Majlis Perubatan Malaysia
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 October 2025
Case Number
W-01(IM)-458-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From High Court Decision Under Medical Act 1971 / Court of Appeal Final Judgment on Competency and Standing Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Judicial Review, Appealability, Disciplinary Proceedings, Saving and Transitional Provisions
Source Language
Malay/English
Medical Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Locus Standi Judicial Review Appealability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Geoffrey Alan Williams

Appellant

Dr Tikfu Gee

1st Respondent

Majlis Perubatan Malaysia

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From High Court Decision Under Medical Act 1971 / Court of Appeal Final Judgment on Competency and Standing Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether repeal of s31(2) MA 1971 and s42(5) MAA 2012 affected competency of appeal
  2. 2 Whether a failed complainant has locus standi/right to appeal under Part IV MA 1971

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because appellant, as a failed complainant, lacked locus standi and no disciplinary order was made against him so Part IV did not confer a right of appeal; additionally the saving/transitional provision meant the repeal of s31(2) did not operate retrospectively for alleged misconduct in 2015, preserving finality of the High Court decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appellant's Court of Appeal appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs of RM15000.00 to the 1st Respondent (subject to allocatur)