Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrationality (wednesbury)

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

RIDUWAN BIN RAHMAT 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGANUT SRI MAHA MARIAMMAN

Citation

BA-25-12-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-12-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the First Respondent acted within its statutory powers and procedures: a local plan for the area existed (so s21 notification/hearing obligations did not arise for the Applicant), applicable state guidelines did not mandate formal social or traffic impact assessments for a place of worship, the First Respondent considered objections and valid planning judgment was exercised (not Wednesbury irrational), and the society appearing was distinct from but capable of being reconciled with the gazetted 2nd Respondent such that the Applicant's locus and procedural…
25 Mar 2024

MUHAMAD SHAHRUL MU'IZ BIN RAHADI 1. ) Lembaga Tatatertib Sokongan (No. 1), Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia 2. ) Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

JA-25-5-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-5-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judicial review was allowed because the disciplinary findings lacked adequate factual particulars to sustain the charges and the disciplinary process was procedurally improper by failing to state the commencement date and whether identical salary reductions ran concurrently or separately; accordingly the disciplinary decision was quashed and the applicant restored to his pre-discipline position.
15 Jun 2022

ABDUL AZIZ BIN IBRAHIM ETIQA GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

DA-25-2-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-25-2-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to demonstrate any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the Industrial Court's awards; the Industrial Court properly recorded and applied settlement terms consistent with s54 and exercised jurisdiction under s56 correctly; solicitors had implied authority and applicant accepted settlement benefits and is estopped from attacking it; judicial review dismissed with costs RM10,000.
7 Feb 2020

DATO’ DR MOHAMAD RAMEEZ BIN YAHAYA 1. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN (NO. 1) 2. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(A) -275-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A) -275-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is allowed because the Disciplinary Appeal Board committed a serious procedural impropriety by remitting the 2nd charge without setting aside the earlier imposition and because the Disciplinary Board failed to specify the effective commencement date of a time‑limited salary reduction, producing wrongful salary deductions and prejudicing the appellant; those defects tainted the proceedings and warranted quashing of both disciplinary decisions.

Malaysia Case Law

RIDUWAN BIN RAHMAT 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGANUT SRI MAHA MARIAMMAN

MUHAMAD SHAHRUL MU'IZ BIN RAHADI 1. ) Lembaga Tatatertib Sokongan (No. 1), Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia 2. ) Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

ABDUL AZIZ BIN IBRAHIM ETIQA GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

DATO’ DR MOHAMAD RAMEEZ BIN YAHAYA 1. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN (NO. 1) 2. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA