Malaysia Case Law

5 Dec 2022

1. ) JAWATANKUASA PEMBINAAN SEMENTARA SJKC TOO JOON HING 2. ) ONG YEW THAI 3. ) MICHAEL TU TUONG DEE 4. ) LEE JEN UYIN 5. ) NG SEOW CHEN 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 2. ) MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 3. ) KERAJAAN MA

Citation

WA-25-26-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-25-26-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned stop work order was quashed because the decision‑maker failed to give reasons, failed to afford the applicants a right to be heard, and relied on unfounded allegations such that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable and ultra vires, thereby justifying certiorari and declarations permitting the applicants to resume construction in accordance with prior approvals.

• Natural justice
• Procedural fairness
• Certiorari
• Ultra vires
• Wednesbury unreasonableness
• Reasons for decision

23 Sept 2020

DSARA SENTRAL SDN BHD 1. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. NIK AHMED JOHAN ANIZAM

Citation

WA-25-62-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-25-62-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Housing Controller's approval to extend time was invalid and void because purchasers were not afforded a right to be heard (breach of natural justice) and the Controller acted beyond power contrary to s.24 of the Housing Development Act; the Tribunal was the appropriate forum under s.16L to determine the purchaser's LAD claim; the applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's award on absence of reasons was barred for failure to plead and for failure to pursue mandamus; the judicial review application was dismissed but the award was varied by consent from RM25,049.16 to RM22…

• Extension of time
• Natural justice (right to be heard)
• Ultra vires delegation
• Tribunal jurisdiction
• Vacant possession
• Liquidated damages calculation

HAZLINDA HAMZAH V. KUMON METHOD OF LEARNING CENTRE

Citation

HAZLINDA HAMZAH V. KUMON METHOD OF LEARNING CENTRE

Court

Malaysian court

The Court held s.114 requires the Tribunal to give reasons but does not prescribe that reasons must be in writing or when they must be delivered; oral reasons given at the hearing, later supported by written reasons, satisfied s.114; the High Court erred in quashing the Tribunal award by issuing certiorari for that reason and the Tribunal's partial refund was within its statutory powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1999; appeal allowed.

• Consumer protection act 1999
• Tribunal for consumer claims
• Judicial review
• Certiorari
• Reasons for decision
• Mandamus