Administrative Law
13 cases · January 2018 to November 2025
Case Volume by Year
4 18
1 21
8 25
2018–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Judicial review — Dismissal of police officer — Whether the charge is duplicity and incomplete — Documents relevant for the charges to be given Administrative Law — Right to be heard — Oral representation Administrative Law — Compliance with regulation 35 and 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 Administrative Law — Failure to provide grounds of decision — Whether breach of natural justice Administrative Law — Doctrine of proportionality — Whether dismissal was harsh and unreasonable 2 Judicial review — Certiorari, mandamus and declaration — Whether refusal to renew mining lease unlawful — Only lessee entitled to apply for renewal — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66; Pahang Mineral Regulations 2005, reg 45(1), Form 8B — JR applications by Geonex are dismissed with costs. Administrative Law — Locus standi — Whether applicant without title had sufficient interest — when dealing with the issue of locus standi as propounded by the minority of the Federal Court in Tan Sri Hj Othman Saat v Mohamed Ismail [1982] 1 LNS 2; Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises [2023] 3 MLJ 829; Nik Elin Zurina v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 3 CLJ 323 Judicial Review — Scope of review — Process and merits — Limits of R Rama Chandran's application — Applicant failed to prove Jabatan Mineral and PTG Pahang's decision were tainted by irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters or perversity — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 MLJ 145; Petroliam Nasional Bhd v Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288 Mining Law — Renewal of mining lease — Prescribed statutory form requires declaration by registered lessee — Application filed by third party company — Rejection upheld and new lease issued to another entity — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66. 2 Judicial review — Order of certiorari to quash the certificates and alternatively a declaration that Certificates of conversion of three children borne out of civil marriage, were null and void — Certificates of conversion showing that the Registrar of Muallaf (‘the registrar’) had registered children as Muslims — Non-compliance of requirements for conversion to the religion of Islam — Whether the High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to review the administrative actions of the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate acting as public authorities in exercising statutory powers vested by the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 — Whether a child of a marriage under a civil marriage who has not attained the age of eighteen years must comply with both sections 96(1) and 106(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 before the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate may register the conversion to Islam of that child — Whether the mother and the father (if both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent before a certificate of conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 (‘the Perak Enactment’), ss 96 and 106;Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91], sections 23, 24 and 25 and the Schedule; Federal Constitution, arts 121 & 121(1A); Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164], Part VIII Protection of children; Rules of High Court 2012, Order 53 Family Law — Civil marriage — Husband converted to Islam on 11.3.2009 — They had three children — Husband obtained a custody order of the three children from the Shariah High Court — Youngest child was with the husband — Whether High Court is the Court that has jurisdiction and power to grant custody of children under civil marriage — High Court granted the wife custody of the three children — Whether a child of a civil marriage who has not attained the age of eighteen years must comply with both sections 96(1) and 106(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 before the Registrar of Muallafs or his delegate may register the conversion to Islam of that child — Whether the mother and the father (if both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent before a certificate of conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 (‘the Perak Enactment’), ss 96 and 106; Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164], Part VIII Protection of children 2 Judicial Review — Restriction order under S. 6(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. 1 Certificates of establishment — Nature and effect — Whether determinative of statutory obligations — Whether subsequent amendment extinguishes accrued obligations — Certificate as prima facie but not conclusive evidence 1 Judicial remedies — Judicial review — Function of High Court when dealing with applications for judicial review — Whether High Court may act as an appeal court — Whether the Applicant’s judicial review application complies with the mandatory requirements under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Whether the Industrial Court committed any jurisdictional error, error of law, or procedural impropriety justifying judicial intervention — Whether the Court is being invited to impermissibly re-evaluate the merits of the Industrial Court’s findings 1 Doctrine of proportionality — Whether s 9(5) PAA 2012 is a justified and balanced restriction — Criminalising failure to notify police (s 9(5)) disproportionately restricts the right to peaceful assembly — Violates Article 10(1)(b) FC — Legitimate Aim — Chilling Effect — Organisers face prosecution even for peaceful gatherings, discouraging exercise of constitutional rights 1 judicial review — mode of commencement — whether by writ or originating summons — circumstances when procedure under Order 53 of Rules of Court 2012 mandatory — whether action liable to be struck out if wrong mode and procedure is used. 1 Order of certiorari — Dismissal from public service — Judicial review application by the Appellant to quash the decision of the Respondent — Whether the Appellant had constitutional right to appeal to Appeal Board against the decision of the Respondent under Article 144(5B)(ii) of the Federal Constitution — Whether Appellant ought not to be dismissed from public service without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in view of Article 132(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution — Whether “opportunity to be heard” connotes oral hearing — Whether Appellant ought to be given related documents and reports that formed subject matter of charges upon his request — Articles 132(1)(c) and 144(5B)(i) of the Federal Constitution — Regulations 4(2)(d), (g), (i), 37 and 38 of Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 — Regulations 5(1) and 14 of the Public Services and Disciplinary Board Regulation 1993 1 Judicial review proceedings — Review of process — Whether DC comply with the procedure set out in the Regulations set out in Part V of the 2nd Schedule to Act 605 — DC found the Appellant guilty and made the recommendation to the Minister to revoke the appointment of the Appellant as deputy CEO and to dismiss the Appellant — Whether Minister, when revoking the fixed term appointment made by him, can concurrently terminate the employment of the Appellant as an employee or officer of the 2nd Respondent — Was the Minister empowered to dismiss the Appellant from service in the 2nd Respondent, which the Minister purported to do by his letter dated 28.11.2012? — Minister had no actual or delegated power to dismiss the Appellant — Companies Commission of Malaysia Act 2001 (Act 614), section 11(4) ; Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 [Act 605], section 6; Disciplinary Rules 2000, Part II, Second Schedule, Regulations 32 to 39 Employment — Members of the public services and all employees of statutory bodies and local authorities — Appellant was charged for tarnishing the name and image of the 2nd respondent and/or irresponsible behavior — Whether decision was perverse, irrational and also contrary to law — Whether Minister, when revoking the fixed term appointment made by him, can concurrently terminate the employment of the Appellant as an employee or officer of the 2nd Respondent — Federal Constitution, Article 132; Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 [Act 605], section 6; Disciplinary Rules 2000, Part II, Second Schedule, Regulation 3(2)(d) or (g); Statutory and Local Authorities Pensions Act 1980; Whistle-blower Protection Act 2010, section 10(3) 1
Judicial review — Dismissal of police officer — Whether the charge is duplicity and incomplete — Documents relevant for the charges to be given Administrative Law — Right to be heard — Oral representation Administrative Law — Compliance with regulation 35 and 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 Administrative Law — Failure to provide grounds of decision — Whether breach of natural justice Administrative Law — Doctrine of proportionality — Whether dismissal was harsh and unreasonable 2 cases
Judicial review — Certiorari, mandamus and declaration — Whether refusal to renew mining lease unlawful — Only lessee entitled to apply for renewal — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66; Pahang Mineral Regulations 2005, reg 45(1), Form 8B — JR applications by Geonex are dismissed with costs. Administrative Law — Locus standi — Whether applicant without title had sufficient interest — when dealing with the issue of locus standi as propounded by the minority of the Federal Court in Tan Sri Hj Othman Saat v Mohamed Ismail [1982] 1 LNS 2; Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises [2023] 3 MLJ 829; Nik Elin Zurina v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 3 CLJ 323 Judicial Review — Scope of review — Process and merits — Limits of R Rama Chandran's application — Applicant failed to prove Jabatan Mineral and PTG Pahang's decision were tainted by irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters or perversity — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 MLJ 145; Petroliam Nasional Bhd v Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288 Mining Law — Renewal of mining lease — Prescribed statutory form requires declaration by registered lessee — Application filed by third party company — Rejection upheld and new lease issued to another entity — Pahang Mineral Enactment 2001, s 66. 2 cases
Judicial Review — Restriction order under S. 6(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. 1 case
Certificates of establishment — Nature and effect — Whether determinative of statutory obligations — Whether subsequent amendment extinguishes accrued obligations — Certificate as prima facie but not conclusive evidence 1 case
Judicial remedies — Judicial review — Function of High Court when dealing with applications for judicial review — Whether High Court may act as an appeal court — Whether the Applicant’s judicial review application complies with the mandatory requirements under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Whether the Industrial Court committed any jurisdictional error, error of law, or procedural impropriety justifying judicial intervention — Whether the Court is being invited to impermissibly re-evaluate the merits of the Industrial Court’s findings 1 case
Doctrine of proportionality — Whether s 9(5) PAA 2012 is a justified and balanced restriction — Criminalising failure to notify police (s 9(5)) disproportionately restricts the right to peaceful assembly — Violates Article 10(1)(b) FC — Legitimate Aim — Chilling Effect — Organisers face prosecution even for peaceful gatherings, discouraging exercise of constitutional rights 1 case
judicial review — mode of commencement — whether by writ or originating summons — circumstances when procedure under Order 53 of Rules of Court 2012 mandatory — whether action liable to be struck out if wrong mode and procedure is used. 1 case
Key Statutes
Peaceful Assembly Act 2012
cited in 1 case Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 1 case Federal Constitution
cited in 1 case Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 1 case Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 1 case Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Cap 177)
cited in 1 case Rules of Court 2012
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
jb-25-2-03-2025
YESYURUN A/L CHANDRAN v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA , POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS DAREAH JOHOR BAHRU SELATAN, JOHOR
24 November 2025
MYHC
wa-24ncvc-4892-12-2024
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA ARTE PLUS @ JALAN AMPANG v 1. ) AMPANG PROPERTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) N JAYA SDN. BHD.
23 November 2025
MYHC
jb-25-4-03-2024
MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN UMAR v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
30 September 2025
MYHC
jb-25-6-03-2024
MOHD SAIFUL RAZIEE BIN TUKIMAN v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
30 September 2025
MYHC
ja-25-20-08-2022
P. SARASWATI A/P S. PERIASAMY v MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD
17 September 2025
MYHC
ca-25-5-09-2023
GEONEX (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) Pengarah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 2. ) ECOSTRENGTH SDN BHD
2 July 2025
MYHC
ca-25-7-07-2024
GEONEX (M) SDN. BHD. v 1. ) JABATAN MINERAL DAN GEOSAINS PAHANG 2. ) PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG
2 July 2025
MYHC
06rj-1-08-2024w
AMIR HARIRI BIN ABD HADI v Pendakwa Raya [Jabatan Peguam Negara]
30 June 2025
MYFC
21ncvc-21-04-2020
1. Sakhti Devi a/p Muniandy@Segaran [NRIC No.: 810407-14-5952] 2. Letchumy a/p Subramaniam [NRIC No.: 791103-10-5950] v 1. Mehar Banu binti Pakeer Mohammad [NRIC No.: 690116-10-5914] 2. Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah Kuala Selangor 3. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia 4. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran Malaysia 5. Kerajaan Malaysia
30 March 2021
MYHC
rayuan-sivil-no-01-37-08-2017p
VIJAYARAO A/L SEPERMANIAM v SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA
15 August 2018
MYFC
rs-01f-23-07-2016w
Rokiah binti Mhd Noor v 1. ) Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan Malaysia 2. ) Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia 3. ) Kementerian PDNKP Malaysia 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
11 March 2018
MYFC
01f-17-06-2016-a-01f-18-06-2016-a-01f-19-06-2016-a
Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v 1. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak 2. Pendaftar Mualaf 3. Kerajaan Negeri Perak 1. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia 2. Kerajaan Malaysia Patmanathan a/l Krishnan PIHAK KETIGA Majlis Peguam Malaysia Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia. Association of Women Lawyers.
28 January 2018
MYFC
01f-17-06-2016-a-01f-18-06-2016-a
Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v 1. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak 2. Pendaftar Mualaf 3. Kerajaan Negeri Perak 1. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia 2. Kerajaan Malaysia Pathmanathan a/l Krishnan PIHAK KETIGA Majls Peguam Malaysia Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia Association of Women Lawyers
28 January 2018
MYFC