Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to be heard

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

Mohamad Sukry bin Tamsuri 1. ) ACP Ng Siew Hiang 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to produce contemporaneous evidence that he attempted to obtain the requested documents and therefore cannot claim denial of documents; applicant did not exculpate himself by furnishing credible evidence in his written representation and therefore was not entitled to an oral hearing; disciplinary authority considered the representations and its decision to impose dismissal was not tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; application dismissed with costs.
27 Nov 2025

DIMENSION BID (M) SDN BHD MOHD FAIZZAL BIN BAHARULRAZI

Citation

WA-16A-28-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-16A-28-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because transfer was within the Company's management prerogative, the claimant's failure to report by the deadline constituted refusal and wilful disobedience amounting to misconduct thereby justifying summary dismissal without a show cause in the circumstances, and there was no evidence of mala fide or victimisation; accordingly the Industrial Court's finding that dismissal was without just cause was plainly wrong and must be set aside.
22 Jan 2025

Tenaga Nasional Berhad 1. ) SIME DARBY PLANTATION BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

Citation

B-01(IM)-67-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-01(IM)-67-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court followed the Federal Court in Spicon Products and held that a paymaster is entitled to intervene under Order 15 r 6(2)(b) ROC to protect its direct legal interest in compensation; therefore the High Court's dismissal of TNB's intervention was set aside.
20 Jan 2025

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD JAYAENTHRAN A/L KRISHNAN

Citation

BA-38-3143-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-38-3143-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Deputy Registrar's Order because section 259(2)(c) permits the court to set a 'new reserve price' (not limited to being higher), the history of seven unsuccessful auctions justified a reduction to attract bidders, the Defendant was given an opportunity to be heard before this Court, and the limiting clauses in the Valuation Report did not preclude the court from fixing a new reserve price; accordingly the RM1,440,000 reserve was lawful and the Registrar's order was affirmed.
24 Sept 2024

SHARIPAH MARHAINI BINTI SYED ALI 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) Aznan Bin Haji Hassan (dalam kapasitinya sebagai Setiausaha Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (“MBPJ”)

Citation

BA-25-62-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-62-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The misjoinder application was dismissed and the second respondent was ordered to remain a party because, although he may not have made the impugned decision, he may be affected by the judicial review outcome and is therefore entitled to be heard; the court exercises its discretion in the interest of justice to retain him as a party.
15 May 2024

SHAMSURI BIN SHAHADAN 1. ) DATO' INDERA KHAIRUL DZAIMEE BIN DAUD PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO. 1), JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA, PUTRAJAYA 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO. 1), JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA, PU

Citation

JA-25-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the applicant failed to establish illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. The show-cause notice complied with PPPAKT, the Disciplinary Authority lawfully considered written representations without holding an oral hearing or calling rebuttal evidence, the charges were sufficiently particularised and not time-barred, authentication of the security stamp supported the findings, and penalty decisions fall within the disciplinary authority's discretion; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed with costs.
26 Sept 2023

Paiman Bin Shakimon [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-09-333-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-09-333-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the High Court wrongly and summarily relied on a JPN.KP10 extract produced from the prosecution table without affidavit or inquiry when the appellant disputed identity; because execution of a 13-year custodial sentence required careful proof of identity, the JPN.KP10 in the form tendered was inadmissible and an inquiry must be held by the High Court to determine whether the appellant is the person named in the warrant.
12 Sept 2023

KHAIRUL AZIZI BIN MAT SAAD 1. ) TAN SRI ABDUL HAMID BADOR 2. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

P-01(A)-796-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

P-01(A)-796-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

When a disciplinary authority under Regulation 37 notifies an officer of a prima facie finding that may lead to dismissal or reduction in rank, it must supply the officer with the documents and information (evidence) intended to be relied upon to enable an effective written representation; failure to do so breaches Article 135(2) and natural justice and is a fundamental procedural flaw justifying quashing the dismissal and ordering reinstatement.
12 Sept 2023

Mohd Jamaludin bin Mahusin 1. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

P-01(A)-733-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

P-01(A)-733-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

When a disciplinary authority issues a disciplinary letter under Regulation 37 communicating a prima facie finding that could lead to dismissal or reduction in rank, the charges must be accompanied by or include the documents and information (the evidence) intended to be relied upon regardless of any request; failure to do so breaches the right to be heard under Article 135(2) and is a fundamental procedural flaw warranting quashing of the dismissal, reinstatement and consequential reliefs.
16 Feb 2023

Adnan Bin Yaakob Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia

Citation

CA-11ANCvC-4-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-11ANCvC-4-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Magistrate's summary judgment because the appellant had contemporaneously admitted the material omission in the abridged prospectus, there were no triable issues or credible denials to necessitate a full trial, and procedural fairness was observed through the show cause and appeal process, making summary judgment appropriate.