Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amenability to judicial review

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2022

PA-25-39-7/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-25-39-7/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-39-7/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time and leave for judicial review was dismissed because it was filed outside the mandatory three-month period without good reason to extend time, and the impugned DGIR and Minister decisions were not final or amenable to judicial review given the statutory appeal remedy to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax; accordingly the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the JR and ordered costs of RM5,000 to each respondent.
21 Feb 2022

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused extension of time because the applicant failed to show good reason for delay under Order 53 r.3(6)-(7), therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the leave application; alternatively, R1 and R2 decisions were not final and were subject to statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and no very exceptional circumstances (abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice) were established to bypass the statutory appeal; accordingly leave and stay were refused and the JR application dismissed with costs.
21 Feb 2022

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide good reasons for delay; the impugned DGIR notices and Minister's letter were not final decisions amenable to judicial review as the statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax remained available; consequently the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the JR application was dismissed with costs.
21 Feb 2022

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time and for leave to commence judicial review was refused because it was filed out of time without good reason and the impugned decisions were not final or amenable to judicial review given the statutory appeal route to the Special Commissioners exists; accordingly the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the application and stay were dismissed with costs.
21 Feb 2022

Daniel John Beasley 1. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri 2. Menteri Kewangan Malaysia

Citation

PA-25-39-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-39-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time and leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because it was filed outside the mandatory three‑month period without good reason; the impugned decisions of R1 and R2 were not final and therefore not amenable to judicial review absent very exceptional circumstances; the statutory appeal route to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax must be pursued; costs awarded to respondents.
21 Feb 2022

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time and leave to commence judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show good reason for delay under Order 53 r 3(6)-(7) and failed to demonstrate the very exceptional circumstances required to bypass the statutory appeal remedy to SCIT; the impugned decisions were not final or amenable to judicial review. The application and stay were dismissed with costs.
21 Feb 2022

1. ) NOOR QHADIJAH BINTI MOHD RIZAL BAHARI 2. ) JULIAN BINTI MOHD YUSOFF 1. ) DSP MOHAMAD SAJIDAN BIN ABDUL SUKOR 2. ) INSPEKTOR MOHAMAD ALIF AL-HAFIZ BIN ABDUL KARIM 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-25-16-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-16-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave for judicial review is refused because the challenge to the alleged wrongful arrest is within private law and not amenable to judicial review at the investigative stage, and the application for mandamus is premature because the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory precondition in s107A CPC to request and await a status report from the officer in charge.
21 Feb 2022

Daniel John Beasley 1. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri 2. Menteri Kewangan Malaysia

Citation

PA-25-39-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-39-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for extension of time and leave for judicial review is dismissed because it was filed beyond the mandatory period under Order 53 r 3(6) ROC 2012 without good reason to extend time; further, the impugned decisions were not final and amenable to JR as statutory remedy by appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax remained available and the applicant failed to establish very exceptional circumstances or breach of natural justice.
21 Feb 2022

PA-25-39-7/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-25-39-7/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-39-7/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for extension of time and for leave to commence judicial review dismissed because applicant failed to provide good reasons for delay (jurisdictional time bar) and the impugned decisions were not final nor amenable to judicial review given the statutory appeal route to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax; costs ordered against applicant.
21 Feb 2022

CHEN, WEN-CHIN 1. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI 2. MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

Citation

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-38-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant failed to establish good reason to extend time under Order 53 r 3(6)/(7); the impugned decisions by R1 and administrative reply by R2 were not final or amenable to judicial review because a statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax exists; no very exceptional circumstances, jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice were shown; therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the application for extension of time and leave was dismissed with costs.