Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to apply

Legal area

Court

11 Jan 2024

1. ) YONG FOO MEI 2. ) ENE (PENANG) SDN BHD 1. ) KERAJAAN NEGERI PERLIS 2. ) MENTERI BESAR PERLIS, YAB TUAN MOHD SHUKRI BIN RAMLI 3. ) AHLI MAJLIS MESYUARAT KERAJAAN NEGERI, YAB TUAN FAKHRUL ANWAR BIN ISMAIL 4. ) MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KANGAR P

Citation

RA-25-2-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-25-2-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Permission for judicial review was refused because applicants failed to identify any formal decision or action by the State executive that caused them adverse effect as required by Order 53 r.2(4), relied on non-decision materials (press articles) which are not reviewable decisions, and the matters complained of concern state policy/administrative prerogative that are non-justiciable; consequently the leave applications were frivolous, vexatious and lacked an arguable case.
15 Nov 2023

MAXIM TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. 1. ) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)

Citation

JA-25-17-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-17-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave dismissed: the 19.4.2023 letter was merely an update and not a fresh reviewable decision; the BODs dated 12.6.2014 are the operative decisions and the applicant filed out of time without seeking extension; the applicant failed to exhaust statutory appeal and remission remedies and, having sought remission, effectively accepted the liability; travel ban is immune from judicial review under the Immigration Act ouster clause and the company lacked locus to seek stay for individual directors; requested stays would amount to prohibited injunctions against public officers.
4 Apr 2023

COURTS (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

BA-25-83-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-83-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was dismissed because the applicant breached the duty of candour by failing to disclose an existing appeal to the SCIT concerning the same assessments, the omission alleged (respondent's failure to exercise powers under s127(3A)/s135 ITA) is not a decision or omission susceptible to judicial review in the circumstances, the existence of an appeal to SCIT provided the proper alternative remedy making JR unnecessary and an abuse of process, and no special circumstances existed to justify a stay given mandatory payment obligations under s103 ITA.
31 Jan 2023

GEZHOUBA ENGINEERING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-61-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-61-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's non-response to the applicant's request under s135 and/or s127(3A) did not constitute a reviewable decision or omission; the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory appeal under s99 to the Special Commissioner and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances required to bypass that remedy, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
13 Dec 2022

NORAIMI BIN SHAFIE UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

Citation

JA-25-14-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-14-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the dispute was a private contractual matter concerning enforcement of a study leave agreement and lacked the requisite public law element; the applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable case at the leave stage, therefore leave to commence judicial review was correctly refused.
26 Oct 2022

1. ) ZHANG JUNMEI 2. ) CHEN RONG XIA 3. ) LUO HONG YAN 4. ) TAN CAIZHU 5. ) HUANG FOLING 6. ) LIANG MING LIAN 7. ) LIU ZHEN 8. ) LIANG SHU YIN 9. ) VAN THI YEN NHI 10. ) DO LAM LINH 11. ) DUONG THI THUY 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN IMIGRESEN PERAK

Citation

AA-25-18-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-18-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicants were out of time to seek leave for judicial review because the cancellation decisions were, at the latest, communicated to their solicitors on 10 February 2022 (and took effect on 31 December 2021); no satisfactory explanation was given to justify an extension of time, and because compliance with Order 53 r3(6) is jurisdictional the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the late application; both the leave application and extension application were dismissed with costs.
6 Sept 2022

1. ) VISA LETCHUMY A/P RAJU 2. ) TAN KIM SEN @ TAN BOON TAK 3. ) RAVI A/L DORASAMY 1. ) MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

W-01(IM)-274-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)-274-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court correctly held it lacked jurisdiction: the leave application was filed out of time without cogent reason and, crucially, there was no existing decision to implement khat when the application was filed (cabinet had substituted Jawi for khat on 14.8.2019), therefore the application was frivolous and not susceptible to certiorari; the High Court's discretionary refusal to extend time was properly exercised and was not disturbed.
22 Aug 2022

MARIA CHIN BINTI ABDULLAH 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAWIP) 3. ) JABATAN KEHAKIMAN SYARIAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave granted because applicant demonstrated serious and arguable questions of law: whether s229 SCPA may be invoked by a private individual and whether Syariah Courts may interpret and apply federal statutes in ways that affect fundamental liberties; civil superior courts retain supervisory jurisdiction to determine such questions and the application was not premature as the Leave Order and Notice to Show Cause immediately and adversely affected the applicant.
28 Mar 2022

NURUL SHAFIKA BINTI ABDULLAH (970415-07-5774) 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA 2. ) Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang 3. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG

Citation

PA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that Respondent 3's strike‑out application (Lampiran 21) was not meritorious because the issues raised had been considered at the leave stage and the matter was not a plain and obvious case fit for summary dismissal; the substantive issues should be heard rather than disposed of on affidavit alone. Consequently Lampiran 21 was rejected. The substantive application (Lampiran 12) was later withdrawn by the applicant, rendering the dispute academic, and the Court struck/cancelled both Lampiran 12 and Lampiran 21 without costs.
8 Jun 2021

Dell Global Business Center Sdn Bhd Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

PA-25-17-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-17-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite "very exceptional circumstances" to bypass the statutory appeal under section 99 of the Income Tax Act 1967, and the concurrent filing of judicial review while pursuing the section 99 appeal constituted an abuse of process; the alternative remedy issue may be decided at the leave stage.