Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certiorari

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

GLOBAL ACTIVATE SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) TAN TECK SEONG

Citation

BA-25-109-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-109-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal applied the correct statutory formula and SPA clause for computing LAD, properly accounted for the COVID-19 exemption period granted, there was no legal error or irrationality in the Awards, the Applicant's request to adjourn pending a speculative further exemption was unreasonable, and the unjust enrichment argument was speculative; accordingly the judicial review applications were dismissed.
27 Apr 2026

SALEH BIN IZUL 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) MR BONGSU MOTORSPORT

Citation

BA-25-7-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-7-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judicial review leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time; under O.53 r.3(6) ROC the time limit for judicial review is jurisdictional and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application absent a proper application and evidence demonstrating good cause for extension of time, therefore the Attorney General's objection was upheld and the leave application (Enclosure 1) was dismissed.
15 Apr 2026

ARUNKUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 1. ) INSPEKTOR NUR AKMAL BIN AMRAN 2. ) KETUA POLIS JOHOR 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara 4. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA

Citation

JB-25-4-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-25-4-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application is dismissed because the seizure and forfeiture were statutory acts forming part of a criminal investigation and therefore not amenable to judicial review; there was no allegation or proof of mala fide; the applicant failed to claim the property within the statutory period; and no statutory duty exists obliging respondents to refer the claim or return the property, so mandamus and certiorari reliefs are inappropriate.
27 Feb 2026

Mohamad Sukry bin Tamsuri 1. ) ACP Ng Siew Hiang 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to produce contemporaneous evidence that he attempted to obtain the requested documents and therefore cannot claim denial of documents; applicant did not exculpate himself by furnishing credible evidence in his written representation and therefore was not entitled to an oral hearing; disciplinary authority considered the representations and its decision to impose dismissal was not tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; application dismissed with costs.
13 Feb 2026

MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA MALAYSIA 1. ) National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH PERHUBUNGAN PERUSAHAAN 3. ) MALAYAN COMMERCIAL BANKS' ASSOCIATION 4. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara PIHAK TERKILAN 1

Citation

WA-25-291-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-291-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's referrals to the Industrial Court were quashed because there was no admissible evidence that the Director General had considered the parties' agreed internal settlement mechanism and formed the requisite opinion under ss.18(4) and 26(3) IRA 1967; additionally the Minister's intervention and support for an inferior ex-gratia package demonstrated bias and procedural impropriety rendering the referrals unreasonable and unlawful.
21 Jan 2026

EVERGREEN FUTURE HOME BUILDERS 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) JAI BHAVANI

Citation

BA-25-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the Attorney General's objection and dismissed the leave application because it was filed 93 days late beyond the three-month limit in O.53 r.3(6) and the applicant failed to establish good reason to extend time under O.53 r.3(7); the 2nd Respondent was not entitled to participate at the ex parte leave stage absent an invitation.
19 Jan 2026

SITI SUHANA BINTI SUID 1. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the applicant failed to establish illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety: the PSC show cause was properly particularised and premised on a prima facie case, not the JPJ decision; alleged predetermination was misconstrued; inclusion of weekends/public holidays did not invalidate the charge; no duty arose to furnish documents absent a request; the delay was not inordinate and delay alone does not amount to condonation; mitigation and an express duty to give reasons are not mandated by the 1993 Regulations in the circumstances; proportionality of punishment is for the…
16 Jan 2026

MOHD ADIL HAKIM BIN MOHAMAD JAMAL 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) KHAIRULHANA BINTI AHMAD ZIAD

Citation

WA-25-163-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-163-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to prove breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or Wednesbury irrationality; tribunal had valid notice, acted within s111 and applicable regulations, properly considered Form 12 and evidence, and the High Court will not re-open merits — accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed and the tribunal award is affirmed with costs.
16 Jan 2026

Nasiruddin Bin Mohd Ali 1. ) Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Perlis 2. ) Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Perlis

Citation

RA-25-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-25-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the impugned fatwa concerns matters of Islamic law and practices within the jurisdiction of Syariah courts and was made and gazetted following prerogative processes involving the Raja of Perlis; under Article 121(1A) the civil High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the substance of such fatwa or to entertain challenges that would require determination of akidah or matters reserved to Syariah fora, and the applicants' core relief would impermissibly require the civil court to decide matters outside its competence.
16 Jan 2026

IOI Properties Group Berhad Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

WA-25-354-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-354-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy under s99 of the Income Tax Act 1967; the issues involve questions of fact and mixed law and fact (the true purpose and nature of the loans and interest), which are matters for the Special Commissioners to determine on evidence; no exceptional circumstances were shown to bypass the appeal route.