Malaysia Case Law

30 Nov 2021

Khairul Azizi Bin Mat Saad 1. ) Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador 2. ) Polis DiRaja Malaysia 3. ) Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

PA-25-6-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

PA-25-6-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Disciplinary Authority complied with the 1993 Regulations (as amended) by issuing charges and considering the applicant's written representation under Regulation 37; the applicant did not request documents or an oral hearing and his bare after‑the‑fact assertions lacked contemporaneous evidence; courts are limited to reviewing procedural fairness and must not substitute the disciplinary authority's discretion on findings or penalty, therefore the dismissal was lawful.

• Natural justice
• Disciplinary procedure
• Judicial review - certiorari
• Regulatory interpretation
• Proportionality

12 Nov 2019

GAN SOON HUAT 1. SANBOS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 2. MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-260-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-25-260-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Industrial Court retains jurisdiction even if reinstatement is not claimed; the unilateral imposition of the Third Commission Scheme and removal of territory constituted a substantial breach going to the root of the employment contract (constructive dismissal); the claimant’s continued employment for about nine months was reasonably explained and did not amount to waiver; accordingly the Industrial Court’s award was illegal and irrational and must be set aside and remitted for rehearing.

• Constructive dismissal
• Jurisdiction of industrial court
• Unilateral variation of contract
• Reinstatement remedy
• Judicial review – certiorari
• Delay/waiver in acceptance of repudiation

BENCON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN PEMBENTUNGAN & 2 ORS

Citation

BENCON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN PEMBENTUNGAN & 2 ORS

Court

Malaysian court

The Court held that under s18 of the Sewerage Services Act 1993, read with s40 of the Interpretation Act 1967, the Director General (and by delegation the First Respondent) had power to permit a connection subject to conditions including payment of a contribution to upgrade capacity; the requirement was reasonable, not a tax, and certiorari was refused in the public interest; the application was dismissed with costs.

• Statutory interpretation
• Power to impose conditions on permits
• Connection to public sewerage system
• Contribution for infrastructure upgrade
• Judicial review - certiorari