1. ) NOOR SITA BINTI OSMAN 2. ) NURAZAWIYAH BINTI ABD JALIL 3. ) ROSMAHADIYAZI BIN MAHMOOD 4. ) SRI SANGAR A/L ARUNASALAM 5. ) MAT KHAIRUDDIN BIN LEBAI IBRAHIM 6. ) MUHAMMAD REDHUAN BIN YACOB 7. ) MOHD FAZLI BIN MOHAMMAD YUSOF 8. ) MOHD NAZRIN BIN MOHD RAMLI 9. ) ABDUL RAZAK BIN ZAINI 10. ) HASLIZAM BIN BIDIN 11. ) NORZILA BINTI MOHAMMAD YUSOF 12. ) SYAMSUL ANUAR BIN MOHD YATIM 13. ) MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN SHADZILI 14. ) ARUNASALAM A/L SUPPRAYAN 15. ) SIVAHAMIAMAH A/P ANANDAN 16. ) PIPAH BINTI YU...

Case Significance

Illustrates the limits of the legitimate-expectation doctrine for unlicensed market traders: an expectation of continued occupation is hard to sustain without a licence, and a local authority's power to clear unauthorised stalls will not readily be disturbed on judicial review absent a clear representation founding a protectable expectation.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns a judicial review challenge by a group of market traders to a local authority's decision to demolish their stalls. The applicants, a group of traders operating stalls at a market site in the Petaling Jaya area, sought to quash a notice issued by the Petaling Jaya City Council (Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya) relating to the demolition of the stalls, invoking section 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1950, section 25 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. The central difficulty for the applicants was that they were not licensed to operate at the site. Their case was put substantially on the basis of legitimate expectation — the contention that, notwithstanding the absence of a licence, the authority's past conduct had generated an expectation that they would be permitted to continue trading or would not be summarily removed. The court examined whether any legitimate expectation capable of protection had arisen in favour of unlicensed occupants and whether the local authority's decision to clear the site was amenable to being quashed. It concluded that there was no basis on which to grant the reliefs sought, and dismissed the application for judicial review with no order as to costs. Delivered by Shahnaz binti Sulaiman J, the judgment is a useful illustration of the limits of the legitimate-expectation doctrine in the context of unlicensed market traders: an expectation of continued occupation is difficult to sustain where the occupier holds no licence, and a local authority's exercise of its statutory power to clear or demolish unauthorised stalls will not readily be disturbed on judicial review absent a clear and unequivocal representation on which a protectable expectation could be founded. The decision underscores that the absence of a licence significantly weakens a claim that a public authority is bound to permit continued use of public land.