Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of judicial review

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2026

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohd Aiman Bin Balpaki

Citation

W-01(A)-335-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-335-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals because the disciplinary process complied with Regulation 37 of the 1993 Regulations and Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution provided the required constitutional safeguard; there is no general duty under the Regulations or Constitution to give reasons for disciplinary decisions affecting livelihood under Article 5(1); the High Court erred in quashing the Disciplinary Board's decisions solely for lack of reasons; therefore the High Court orders were set aside and costs awarded.
1 Dec 2025

MOHAMMAD HANIF BIN ADENAN 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-358-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-358-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Revocation of the first show cause letter was lawful because the 1993 Regulations do not prohibit revocation and no decision had been made on the applicant's earlier representations; the 2nd show cause letter was validly issued under the same regulatory scheme; the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's choice of punishment absent procedural illegality or breach of natural justice; no duty to give reasons arose on these facts; the judicial review application therefore fails and is dismissed.
22 Apr 2025

XTREME MERIDIAN SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) Muhammad Hariz Bin Md Azman

Citation

W-01(A)-574-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-574-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed the High Court and Tribunal: the Tribunal's Technical Report and evidence supported the factual finding that defects existed; the SPA (contextual reading of '/') required both cabinet and vanity top; the appellant failed to rectify within the contractual 30 days and therefore the purchaser was entitled to carry out works and recover reasonable costs; no error of law, irrationality or procedural impropriety was shown; appeal dismissed.
4 Feb 2021

MEJAR (B) SAWALUDIN BIN LAMIN 1. MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA 2. LEMBAGA PERUBATAN KHAS MARKAS ANGKATAN TENTERA, BAHAGIAN PERKHIDMATAN KESIHATAN 3. MARKAS TENTERA UDARA MALAYSIA 4. KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-227-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-227-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The medical and cause determination boards applied the relevant statutory provisions and recognized guidelines, provided reasons and calculations, lawfully apportioned causation and applied rounding rules to certify 20% disability (with 21% ex-gratia); the decision was neither irrational nor procedurally improper and the court will not displace factual/credibility findings of specialized medical tribunals in judicial review.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohd Aiman Bin Balpaki

MOHAMMAD HANIF BIN ADENAN 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

XTREME MERIDIAN SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) Muhammad Hariz Bin Md Azman

MEJAR (B) SAWALUDIN BIN LAMIN 1. MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA 2. LEMBAGA PERUBATAN KHAS MARKAS ANGKATAN TENTERA, BAHAGIAN PERKHIDMATAN KESIHATAN 3. MARKAS TENTERA UDARA MALAYSIA 4. KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA