Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ministerial discretion

Legal area

Court

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.
20 Jun 2025

Kuan Zi Yi PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM

Citation

JA-24NCvC-1015-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-1015-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given the applicant's own official documents (title deed condition, PDS15, sale and purchase agreement) described the unit as a "service apartment" with rental/tenancy features, and Perintah Duti Setem (Pengecualian) 2021 excludes service apartments, the Minister's order is a valid exercise of power under s80 Stamp Act 1949 and the respondent lawfully imposed stamp duty; therefore the application is dismissed and the respondent's decision is upheld.
15 Apr 2025

1. ) STEFANIE JEAN YII 2. ) LIM KA YI 3. ) GENEVIE WAN ANYIE 4. ) NGAN SIN YEE 5. ) SIVARAMAN A/L MANIAM 6. ) ANURATHA A/P LETCHIMANIAM 7. ) WONG BOON PIN 8. ) CHAM CHEN LEA 9. ) CHIA HENG KIANG 10. ) SEAH LEE FONG 11. ) KAW HENG KEE @ LAW

Citation

BA-25-14-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-14-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Sections 35 and 38C of the Covid-19 Acts validly empower exclusion and extensions; liquidated damages under SPA are contractual rights not 'property' under Article 13 so the Acts are not unconstitutional; ministerial approvals were within statutory discretion, not irrational or illegal in the pandemic context, and no breach of natural justice requiring individual hearings occurred; judicial review application dismissed and exemptions upheld.
27 Nov 2024

WONG KING SUI 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-134-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-134-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed habeas corpus application: (1) 30‑day interval for TMDN to consider investigation reports was reasonable given statutory scheme and requirement to be satisfied under s.6; (2) empty translation field on Form I did not prove non‑explanation because investigator offered interpreter and applicant declined and signed; (3) Advisory Board lawfully exercised discretion under s.12 in not issuing subpoenas for certain witnesses; (4) discrepancy in statement time was a clerical error and not prejudicial — cumulatively insufficient to justify habeas corpus.
14 May 2024

MOHD IZZUL FAKHRUL BIN MAT YASIN 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI , MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAH BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-44-85-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-85-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that there was no procedural non-compliance in any challenged respect: the s3(2)(c) report and detention order were sufficiently compliant (any inconsistency immaterial), the recording of the applicant's statement complied with s4(1), the investigation and report submissions were carried out with reasonable speed, the Minister was entitled to take the time he did to be satisfied before issuing the detention order, and the official gazette validated the locality; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed and the detention order upheld.
18 Jul 2023

1. ) TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ BIN ZAINAL 2. ) DATUK MUSTAFHA BIN ABD RAZAK 3. ) DATUK RAHIM BIN YUNUS 1. ) LEMBAGA PENGARAH BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) MENTERI PEMBANGUNAN USAHAWAN DAN KOPERASI 3. ) MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 4. ) K

Citation

W-01(A)-127-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-127-03/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the Minister's decision rejecting termination of Act 202 was communicated on 16.4.2019, the applicants filed out of time and failed to show good reason for an extension; additionally the Minister's decision under s31 is a discretionary policy decision entrusted to the executive and thus non-justiciable, so the High Court correctly denied leave and the Court of Appeal affirms that decision.
31 Jan 2023

ALAKESAN A/L SIVALINGAM

Citation

BA-44-270-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-270-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court held that there was procedural non‑compliance: detention of the applicant in Teluk Intan police lockup for 44 days exceeded the 30‑day limit under s7 Prison Act 1995 as applied by Gazette P.U.(B)85/2006 and no ministerial authorization for extended use of that lock‑up under the DD Act was shown; consequently the detention was unlawful and a writ of habeas corpus was granted. All other challenged grounds lacked merit as non‑procedural or were not established.
30 Nov 2022

ASTRO MALAYSIA HOLDINGS BERHAD PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

WA-25-42-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-42-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Minister's failure to respond to an urgent request within the specified time amounted to an omission reviewable under Order 53; the applicant was adversely affected by the non-decision because assessments under ss103 and 106 of the ITA exposed it to immediate payment or recovery action; the leave application was therefore not frivolous and leave was granted to pursue substantive judicial review of the Minister's omission.
26 Sept 2022

DONG JIAO ZONG HIGHER LEARNING CENTRE BHD PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

WA-25-343-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-343-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's inaction in failing to respond to the applicant's request constituted an omission amenable to judicial review under O 53 r 2(4) ROC; the applicant satisfied the low threshold for leave and leave for judicial review is granted to challenge the Minister's omission, with substantive merits (including applicability of ss 135 and 127(3A) and the question of exhaustion under s 99) to be determined at the substantive hearing.
1 Sept 2022

IMPIAN SELOKA SDN. BHD. PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

WA-25-259-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-259-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's omission to respond to the applicant's request constituted a reviewable omission under O53 r2(4) ROC; the applicant was adversely affected by that omission and the leave application was not frivolous, therefore leave for judicial review is granted; issues as to merits (whether ss135 or 127(3A) permit setting aside the assessments) are reserved for substantive hearing.