Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legitimate expectation

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

ISKANDAR WATERFRONT SDN BHD 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR BAHRU 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI JOHOR 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor

Citation

JA-24NCvC-246-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-246-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st Respondent's rejection was set aside because it was irrational and unreasonable: it conflicted with the State's prior conduct in alienating the lands for commercial development, failed to take account of the physical impossibility of complying with the express oil palm condition, and lacked adequate reasons; the appropriate remedy is de novo reconsideration by the State Authority with directed considerations and reasons rather than the court substituting its own approval.
5 Mar 2026

DATO' SHAHRIL BIN ISMAIL 1. ) PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB 2. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA NEGARA 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 4. ) PENGARAH BAHAGIAN PENCEN 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

JA-25-32-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-32-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Termination under Peraturan 49(3) was within statutory authority, was not ultra vires, procedurally defective or Wednesbury‑unreasonable; pension adjustments under Section 13 were within permissible statutory discretion and no clear legitimate expectation was shown; therefore judicial review reliefs sought were denied and application dismissed.
26 Feb 2026

LION PACIFIC SDN BHD 1. ) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-457-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-457-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held Respondents acted within statutory authority and provided lawful, rational reasons: Skypark was the designated consortium representative and received CoGSTR; documentary and audit evidence showed Lion Pacific invoiced Skypark (not MOT) so its supplies were separate transactions and not exempt; no clear promise gave rise to a legitimate expectation; statute did not impose a duty to give reasons and MOF had explained the mechanism and met the Applicant; judicial review dismissed and costs awarded.
16 Feb 2026

ISMAIL BIN MAMAT 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Besut 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu 3. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG)

Citation

TA-24-2-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

TA-24-2-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The surrender was valid and effective because the Plaintiff voluntarily applied for surrender in 2017 pursuant to MMKN conditions that predated the acquisition; the delayed memorial in 2022 was an administrative deficiency that did not establish bad faith sufficient to invalidate the surrender; the Plaintiff's registered proprietorship was defeasible by his prior undertaking so he was not entitled to compensation for the subject lot; procedural non-compliance under section 198(4) warranted procedural remedies but did not void the surrender or entitle the Plaintiff to substantive relief.
29 Dec 2025

APRIL CAMILLA ROSLANI 1. ) NOOR AZUAN ABU OSMAN 2. ) Universiti Malaya (UM)

Citation

BA-25-98-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-98-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the statutory internal remedy in s33(1) did not apply (Vice‑Chancellor is not an 'Authority' under the definition), the Vice‑Chancellor has express statutory discretion under s24(7) to revoke deanships at any time, the appointment was an administrative domestic post not contractual, the applicant had no legally enforceable legitimate expectation or right to prior hearing or reasons, and there was no evidence of mala fide or abuse of power.
26 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM TITT HUAT 2. ) LIM WOOI BOO 1. ) TAN SAY KENG 2. ) TAN TENG TENG 3. ) OH TEIK GEE 4. ) RODA BERLIAN (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-118-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-118-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Roda Berlian is a quasi‑partnership and the Plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation to participate in management; the removal of the Plaintiffs was not justified by the 1st Plaintiff's convictions which lacked sufficient nexus and were employed as a pretext to consolidate majority control; viewed cumulatively the exclusion and conduct amounted to oppression under s346 CA 2016 and warrant equitable relief including a compulsory valuation and buy‑out of the Plaintiffs' shares as at 21 April 2021.
12 Dec 2025

1. ) JASA MERIN (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 2. ) JM GLOBAL 3 (LABUAN) PLC 3. ) JM GLOBAL 4 (LABUAN) PLC 1. ) PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-318-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-318-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed: the Minister's refusal dated 5.1.2021 was the operative decision and the judicial review against the Minister was time‑barred under Order 53 r.3(6); the Collector's assessments must be challenged via the statutory objection and appeal procedure under ss.38A and 39 of the Stamp Act 1949 and pursuing judicial review concurrently constituted an abuse of process; ministerial discretion under s.80 is wide and not susceptible to merits review in these proceedings.
28 Nov 2025

1. ) AHMAD SHARIL BIN NOR RASIT 2. ) AZWANI BINTI AZIZ 3. ) AI SMART PERFECT SERVICES 4. ) AI SMART PS TRADE 5. ) NOR AMIRAH BINTI SURIA 6. ) NOR SAZLIANA BINTI SAZALI 7. ) MUKMIN MOHD BIN IBRAHIM 8. ) SITI ROZIANA BINTI ABDULLAH 9. ) MUHAM

Citation

WA-25-342-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-342-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

At the time of filing there was no reviewable decision or demonstrable refusal by Bank Negara; its investigatory powers under FSA/IFSA are discretionary and not mandatorily enforceable by mandamus; the 10.6.2022 letter constituted a decision that the Applicants failed to challenge in time; the complaints were essentially contractual matters subject to civil suits and alternative adequate remedies existed; statutory secrecy barred compelled disclosure — accordingly judicial review was not available and the application was dismissed.
5 Nov 2025

SAUJANA TRIANGLE SDN BHD Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

BA-25-45-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-45-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant raised substantial and arguable legal questions (interpretation of s140A(2) and (3), treatment of interest free advances as financial assistance, and retrospective effect of s140A(3C)) such that the leave threshold was met; issues concerning alternative remedies under Act 53 are matters for the substantive hearing and do not render the leave application premature. Therefore the AG's objection was dismissed and leave to apply for judicial review was granted.
4 Nov 2025

Kuantan Waterfront Resort City Sdn Bhd PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM

Citation

BA-24NCvC-981-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-981-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 39(1) does not obligate the Collector to include every amendment or issue proposed by the taxpayer; the Collector complied by stating the operative legal question and decision, the Case Stated contains adequate factual material, and therefore the omission of the Appellant's proposed issues does not render the Case Stated defective; preliminary objection dismissed.