YEOH THIAM SOON v Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya

Case Significance

Illustrates the strict enforcement of statutory service requirements in public-law challenges, quashing a local-authority nuisance-abatement notice for procedural impropriety in the manner of service.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Shahnaz binti Sulaiman J, concerns an application for judicial review by a property owner to quash a notice issued by Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya (the Subang Jaya City Council). The notice — a Notis Menghendaki Untuk Mencegah Kacau Ganggu (a notice requiring the abatement of a nuisance) dated 9 January 2024 — was issued under subsection 87(2) of the Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974 (the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974), the applicant being the owner of a property in Subang Jaya within the council's jurisdiction. The council had earlier initiated Magistrate's Court proceedings against the applicant alleging that the property had been used unlawfully as a lodging facility or event venue without the necessary approvals. The single ground on which the judicial review turned was whether service of the notice under section 87(2) on the applicant's solicitor, rather than on the applicant, was procedurally proper.

The Court examined the statutory service requirements under the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and rejected the council's contention that service on the solicitor was sufficient. It held that service of the notice under section 87(2) on the applicant's solicitor was procedurally improper, and that this procedural impropriety was itself sufficient to warrant the court's intervention. Having decided the matter on that ground, the Court did not go on to consider the other grounds advanced by the applicant.

The Court allowed the application for judicial review and granted an order of certiorari to quash the notice dated 9 January 2024 issued under subsection 87(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. No other reliefs were granted, and the council was ordered to pay costs of RM4,000 to the applicant, subject to allocatur. The judgment is a useful illustration of how strict compliance with statutory service requirements is enforced in public-law challenges, and of the readiness of the court to quash a local-authority notice for procedural impropriety in the manner of service, without needing to reach the remaining grounds.