WANG CHOON YIN DATO’ SERI HJ. MUSTAFAR BIN HJ ALI & 5 LAGI

WANG CHOON YIN DATO’ SERI HJ. MUSTAFAR BIN HJ ALI & 5 LAGI

The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's interlocutory ruling was upheld: respondents 1, 3 and 5 were improperly joined because the impugned decisions were collective acts of respondents 2 and 4 and any factual witnesses can depose affidavits without being named; damages claims were rightly limited at the leave stage because damages in judicial review are permissible only where the claimant could have recovered them in an ordinary action and public servants entitled to reinstatement cannot also recover separate damages without double accounting.

Citation
B-01(A)-20-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Applicant (penolong Penguasa Imigresen Kp29): Wang Choon Yin; Respondent 1 (chairman, Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan No.1): Dato’ Seri Hj. Mustafar bin Hj Ali; Respondent 2 (disciplinary Board): Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No.1), Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Putrajaya; Respondent 3 (chairman, Appeal Board): Pengerusi Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam; Respondent 4 (appeal Board): Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia; Respondent 5 (atase/reporting Officer): Abdul Razak bin Junaidi; Respondent 6 (employer): Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Case Number
B-01(A)-20-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From High Court Decision on Leave for Judicial Review / Appeal Against High Court's Interlocutory Ruling on Leave/permissibility of Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Misjoinder of Parties, Damages in Judicial Review, Reinstatement for Public Servants, Disciplinary Dismissal, Leave Stage Screening
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Public Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Misjoinder of Parties Damages in Judicial Review Reinstatement for Public Servants +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wang Choon Yin

Applicant (penolong Penguasa Imigresen Kp29)

Dato’ Seri Hj. Mustafar bin Hj Ali

Respondent 1 (chairman, Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan No.1)

Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No.1), Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Putrajaya

Respondent 2 (disciplinary Board)

Pengerusi Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam

Respondent 3 (chairman, Appeal Board)

Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia

Respondent 4 (appeal Board)

Abdul Razak bin Junaidi

Respondent 5 (atase/reporting Officer)

Kerajaan Malaysia

Respondent 6 (employer)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From High Court Decision on Leave for Judicial Review / Appeal Against High Court's Interlocutory Ruling on Leave/permissibility of Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether misjoinder of parties (naming respondents 1,3 and 5) should be resolved at the leave stage
  2. 2 Whether claims for damages (general, aggravated, exemplary, emotional distress) are maintainable or should be struck out at the leave stage in a judicial review by a public servant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's interlocutory ruling was upheld: respondents 1, 3 and 5 were improperly joined because the impugned decisions were collective acts of respondents 2 and 4 and any factual witnesses can depose affidavits without being named; damages claims were rightly limited at the leave stage because damages in judicial review are permissible only where the claimant could have recovered them in an ordinary action and public servants entitled to reinstatement cannot also recover separate damages without double accounting.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court decision upholding preliminary objections affirmed