Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Natural justice - right to be heard

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2025

1. ) STEFANIE JEAN YII 2. ) LIM KA YI 3. ) GENEVIE WAN ANYIE 4. ) NGAN SIN YEE 5. ) SIVARAMAN A/L MANIAM 6. ) ANURATHA A/P LETCHIMANIAM 7. ) WONG BOON PIN 8. ) CHAM CHEN LEA 9. ) CHIA HENG KIANG 10. ) SEAH LEE FONG 11. ) KAW HENG KEE @ LAW

Citation

BA-25-14-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-14-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Sections 35 and 38C of the Covid-19 Acts validly empower exclusion and extensions; liquidated damages under SPA are contractual rights not 'property' under Article 13 so the Acts are not unconstitutional; ministerial approvals were within statutory discretion, not irrational or illegal in the pandemic context, and no breach of natural justice requiring individual hearings occurred; judicial review application dismissed and exemptions upheld.
20 Jan 2025

Tan Lay Ean 1. ) Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James 2. ) Bar Council Malaysia

Citation

W-02(A)-1522-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-1522-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the appellant's direct letter to the presiding judge complaining that the opponent counsel was a 'vexatious and frivolous' litigant crossed professional lines, amounted to conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor and brought the profession into disrepute in breach of s.94(3)(d),(o) LPA and Rules 18 and 31 LPR; any failure by the Disciplinary Board to provide a mitigation hearing under the pre-amendment s.103D did not vitiate the decision because the Board imposed the least possible penalty (censure) and any procedural breach had no material effect on the outcome.
22 Jun 2021

Ariffaisel bin Ariffin 1. Lembaga Tatatertib, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya 2. Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya

Citation

BA-25-65-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-65-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The disciplinary authority lawfully exercised its discretion; appointment of a Committee of Investigation under Rule 33(1) was not mandatory, the applicants were given and availed opportunity to make representations which were considered and minuted, and the conviction under s15(1)(a) DDA amounted to conduct bringing the Council into disrepute justifying dismissal; applicants failed to establish procedural impropriety, irrationality or illegality.
16 Aug 2019

MURALY A/L VARATAA RAJU (NRIC. No.: 790918-08-5941) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (M) BHD. (Co. No.: 735426-V)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-624-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-624-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enc.7 allowed and recovery action struck out because (1) JPJ insurance record lacked probative weight and did not identify vehicle model; (2) Defendant proved policy cancellation and surrender of insurance certificate before accident displacing insurer's liability under s96(2)(c)(i); and (3) interlocutory and final judgments in the liability suit are not valid against the deceased because plaintiff failed to substitute the deceased under mandatory O15 r7(2) and thereby deprived the deceased's representative of the right to be heard, breaching natural justice.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) STEFANIE JEAN YII 2. ) LIM KA YI 3. ) GENEVIE WAN ANYIE 4. ) NGAN SIN YEE 5. ) SIVARAMAN A/L MANIAM 6. ) ANURATHA A/P LETCHIMANIAM 7. ) WONG BOON PIN 8. ) CHAM CHEN LEA 9. ) CHIA HENG KIANG 10. ) SEAH LEE FONG 11. ) KAW HENG KEE @ LAW

Tan Lay Ean 1. ) Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James 2. ) Bar Council Malaysia

Ariffaisel bin Ariffin 1. Lembaga Tatatertib, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya 2. Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya

MURALY A/L VARATAA RAJU (NRIC. No.: 790918-08-5941) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (M) BHD. (Co. No.: 735426-V)