Judicial Review
18 cases · February 2025 to January 2026
Case Volume by Year
17 25
1 26
2025–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Military law — Court-martial — Convening authority — Whether convening officer possessed requisite command power — Temporary attachment of accused to Legal Branch — Whether accused was “under command” within meaning of s 104(4) Armed Forces Act 1972 — Delegation of power — Whether lack of command renders proceedings void ab initio — Effect of jurisdictional defect — Armed Forces Act 1972, s 104 — Federal Constitution, arts 5(1), 8(1), 137(1). 2 Scope — Military tribunals — Distinction between appeal and review — Whether High Court may re-evaluate evidence — Exceptional circumstances — Jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice — Discretionary relief. 2 dismissal without just cause or excuse — representations were referred to the Industrial Court pursuant to s.20(3) of the Act. . 2 whether the Respondents’ failure to disclose the detailed methodology and figures underpinning the dumping margin prior to the Final Determination was lawful, and whether the use of erroneous figures in the margin calculation renders the determination invalid. — Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 ("CADDR 1994") — principles of procedural fairness and natural Justice — Duty to Disclose Detailed Dumping Margin Calculation Sheet — Procedural Impropriety 1 Challenge to extension of time granted by Ministry of Housing and Local Government — Whether application constitutes impermissible collateral challenge — Proper remedy is judicial review under Order 53 — Failure to file judicial review within prescribed time — Application dismissed 1 Dismissal was wrongful, unlawful and legally invalid — Premature Dismissal — no appealable error — Commitment Document — acted bona fide — not amount to misconduct 1 Income Tax — Tax Release — Deductible Interest — Deduct the loan as operating expense / liability outright or Initially treat the loan disbursement as an income (no deduction) — Interpretation and the true effects of Section 30(4) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA”) — Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to find that Section 30(4) of the ITA irrelevant and inapplicable — Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to apply the lex generalis in Section 4 and Section 22 of the ITA in the case for waiver of debt; Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to find that the Revenue was entitled to impose a 2nd Tax Collection against the Waived Debt during (Y) despite having collected against the loan sum during (X); and Whether or not the categorisation of the loan debt (as CAPEX or OPEX) in the specific circumstance of this case would carry any material impact against the appropriate tax treatment. 1 Leave stage — Attorney General's role under o.53 r 3(3) ROC 2012 — Whether duty to confirm or disclose documents — Burden of proof for disputed evidence — Distinction between procedural and respondent roles. Fresh Evidence — Application at appellate stage — Rule 7 (3A) RCA 1994 — Whether codifies or displaces Ladd v Marshall — Threshold of "determining influence" vs "important influence". Constitutional Law — Royal pardon — Judicial review of Pardons Board decision — Whether justiciable — Whether fresh evidence may be introduced to challenger pardon under Article 42 Federal Constitution. Appellate Procedure — Admission of additional evidence — Interpretation and scope of Rule 7(3A) — Compatibility with common law principles. 1 Leave stage — Attorney General's role under o.53 r 3(3) ROC 2012 — Whether duty to confirm or disclose documents — Burden of proof for disputed evidence — Distinction between procedural and respondent roles. Fresh Evidence — Application at appellate stage — Rule 7(3A) RCA 1994 — Whether codifies or displaces Ladd v Marshall — Threshold of "determining influence" vs "important influence". Constitutional Law — Royal pardon — Judicial review of Pardons Board decision — Whether justiciable — Whether fresh evidence may be introduced to challenge pardon under Article 42 Federal Constitution. Appellate Procedures — Admission of additional evidence — Interpretation and scope of Rule 7(3A) — Compatibility with common law principles. 1 Order 53 Rules of Court — certiorari to quash Industrial Court Award; — Findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses — whether amenable to Judicial Review — Whether there were errors of law committed by the Learned Chairman in arriving at his decision that the dismissal of the Respondent was without just cause or excuse; — Court finds no errors of law and application is dismissed with costs. 1 leave application — O 53 r 3 (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 — Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution — service of statement and affidavit in support to AGC — s 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code — control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings — appropriate, rare and exceptional cases — exercise of discretion of AG — amenable to judicial review — two-step threshold — presumption of legality — presence during ex parte hearing for leave — assist the court — not as a party — O 53 r 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 — role of AG at leave stage — compelling and prima facie proof — malice — mala fide — attempt to obstruct a transparent investigation — communication blatantly ignored — IGP was not decision maker — whether wrong party named — O 53 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 Certiorari to quash decision of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) — The MMC found the doctor not guilty of any professional misconduct pursuant to section 30 of the Medical Act 1971 — The 1st applicant is the patient who was treated by the doctor — The 2nd applicant is the husband of the patient — Whether the applicants have the requisite locus standi to initiate the application for judicial review — The patient’s medical negligence suit against the doctor was settled amicably without any admission of liability — Consent judgment was recorded — Whether the applicants are estopped from raising issues of negligence in this judicial review application. 1 exercise a supervisory not appellate jurisdiction — Defect Liability Period — failure to observe the Non-Rectification Clause — the developer failed to repair and rectify — third-party expert testimony — finding on the usage of the symbol — Tribunal had not committed any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety that warrants its decision be quashed 1 Public employment — Dismissal — Failure to give contemporaneous reasons — Procedural unfairness — Right to meaningful judicial review — Whether silence in statute excuses duty to give reasons — Disciplinary jurisdiction — Whether public service rules applicable to conduct committed before entry into public service — Whether State authority acted ultra vires — Remedies limited to reinstatement and back pay is appropriate relief to cure procedural irregularity 1 Challenge against building plan approval granted by MBPP — Whether the building plan must be signed by the owner of the land — Whether the renovation works have deviated from the approved building plan — Whether the building plan is a circumvention of a pending planning permission application. 1 Certiorari — Application to quash award of Industrial Court — Claimant argued retrenchment exercise was mala fide — whether company acted in good faith by employing someone from outside — whether the applicant’s duties & responsibilities were redundant. 1 Certiorari to quash the award of the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims — The Tribunal awarded the respondent liquidated damages for late delivery of vacant possession of his house — Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider that a sum was already paid to the respondent as liquidated damages pursuant to a settlement letter — Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider section 35 of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid — 19) Act 2020, which provided an extension of time of 167 days for the delivery of vacant possession. 1
Scope — Military tribunals — Distinction between appeal and review — Whether High Court may re-evaluate evidence — Exceptional circumstances — Jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice — Discretionary relief. 2 cases
ta-25-3-12-2024 MUHAMAD ZULZAMRI BIN HARUN v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL MOHD FAEZAL BIN MAHAMAD TUDM, YANG DIPERTUA MAHKAMAH TENTERA 2. ) BRIGEDIER JENERAL DR. NORAZRIN BIN SHAMSUDIN TUDM, PEGAWAI SIDANG MAHKAMAH TENTERA/PEGAWAI PENGESAH 3. ) TIMBALAN PANGLIMA TENTERA UDARA LEFTENAN JENERAL DATO’ HAJI MUHAMAD NORAZLAN BIN ARIS 4. ) MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
25 November 2025
ta-25-4-12-2024 NORISAM BIN ABDULLAH v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL MOHD FAEZAL BIN MAHAMAD TUDM, YANG DIPERTUA MAHKAMAH TENTERA 2. ) BRIGEDIER JENERAL DR. NORAZRIN BIN SHAMSUDIN TUDM, PEGAWAI SIDANG MAHKAMAH TENTERA/PEGAWAI PENGESAH 3. ) TIMBALAN PANGLIMA TENTERA UDARA LEFTENAN JENERAL DATO’ HAJI MUHAMAD NORAZLAN BIN ARIS 4. ) MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
25 November 2025
dismissal without just cause or excuse — representations were referred to the Industrial Court pursuant to s.20(3) of the Act. . 2 cases
w-01a-128-03-2021 Hubline Berhad v 1. ) INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB & 38 YANG LAIN 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Highline Shipping Sdn Bhd
20 October 2025
w-01a-142-03-2021 HIGHLINE SHIPPING SDN BHD v 1. ) INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB 2. ) DANNY NG HEAN TEE 3. ) TAI KUANG NENG 4. ) RUZI BIN SUPERMAN 5. ) NORMIZAH BINTI JAMIAN 6. ) WAN BAIZURAH BINTI WAN HUSIN 7. ) VICRAN A/L ELANGGOVEN 8. ) MOHD HAFILDZ BIN ASHA'ARI 9. ) NORA AZILIDA BINTI MAMAT 10. ) RADZIAH BINTI MOHD OMAR 11. ) GEORGE MASILAMONEY 12. ) ANNAMAL GIRIJA 13. ) VISWASEGAR A/L RASIAH 14. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN SALEH 15. ) SHAHRUL ANUAR BIN MAT ZAIN 16. ) SUHANA BINTI MOHD ZUBIR 17. ) HASLIZA BINTI ZAKARIA...
20 October 2025
whether the Respondents’ failure to disclose the detailed methodology and figures underpinning the dumping margin prior to the Final Determination was lawful, and whether the use of erroneous figures in the margin calculation renders the determination invalid. — Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 ("CADDR 1994") — principles of procedural fairness and natural Justice — Duty to Disclose Detailed Dumping Margin Calculation Sheet — Procedural Impropriety 1 case
Challenge to extension of time granted by Ministry of Housing and Local Government — Whether application constitutes impermissible collateral challenge — Proper remedy is judicial review under Order 53 — Failure to file judicial review within prescribed time — Application dismissed 1 case
Dismissal was wrongful, unlawful and legally invalid — Premature Dismissal — no appealable error — Commitment Document — acted bona fide — not amount to misconduct 1 case
Income Tax — Tax Release — Deductible Interest — Deduct the loan as operating expense / liability outright or Initially treat the loan disbursement as an income (no deduction) — Interpretation and the true effects of Section 30(4) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA”) — Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to find that Section 30(4) of the ITA irrelevant and inapplicable — Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to apply the lex generalis in Section 4 and Section 22 of the ITA in the case for waiver of debt; Whether or not the Learned Judge and the SCIT was correct to find that the Revenue was entitled to impose a 2nd Tax Collection against the Waived Debt during (Y) despite having collected against the loan sum during (X); and Whether or not the categorisation of the loan debt (as CAPEX or OPEX) in the specific circumstance of this case would carry any material impact against the appropriate tax treatment. 1 case
Leave stage — Attorney General's role under o.53 r 3(3) ROC 2012 — Whether duty to confirm or disclose documents — Burden of proof for disputed evidence — Distinction between procedural and respondent roles. Fresh Evidence — Application at appellate stage — Rule 7 (3A) RCA 1994 — Whether codifies or displaces Ladd v Marshall — Threshold of "determining influence" vs "important influence". Constitutional Law — Royal pardon — Judicial review of Pardons Board decision — Whether justiciable — Whether fresh evidence may be introduced to challenger pardon under Article 42 Federal Constitution. Appellate Procedure — Admission of additional evidence — Interpretation and scope of Rule 7(3A) — Compatibility with common law principles. 1 case
Leave stage — Attorney General's role under o.53 r 3(3) ROC 2012 — Whether duty to confirm or disclose documents — Burden of proof for disputed evidence — Distinction between procedural and respondent roles. Fresh Evidence — Application at appellate stage — Rule 7(3A) RCA 1994 — Whether codifies or displaces Ladd v Marshall — Threshold of "determining influence" vs "important influence". Constitutional Law — Royal pardon — Judicial review of Pardons Board decision — Whether justiciable — Whether fresh evidence may be introduced to challenge pardon under Article 42 Federal Constitution. Appellate Procedures — Admission of additional evidence — Interpretation and scope of Rule 7(3A) — Compatibility with common law principles. 1 case
Order 53 Rules of Court — certiorari to quash Industrial Court Award; — Findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses — whether amenable to Judicial Review — Whether there were errors of law committed by the Learned Chairman in arriving at his decision that the dismissal of the Respondent was without just cause or excuse; — Court finds no errors of law and application is dismissed with costs. 1 case
leave application — O 53 r 3 (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 — Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution — service of statement and affidavit in support to AGC — s 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code — control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings — appropriate, rare and exceptional cases — exercise of discretion of AG — amenable to judicial review — two-step threshold — presumption of legality — presence during ex parte hearing for leave — assist the court — not as a party — O 53 r 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 — role of AG at leave stage — compelling and prima facie proof — malice — mala fide — attempt to obstruct a transparent investigation — communication blatantly ignored — IGP was not decision maker — whether wrong party named — O 53 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 1 case
Certiorari to quash decision of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) — The MMC found the doctor not guilty of any professional misconduct pursuant to section 30 of the Medical Act 1971 — The 1st applicant is the patient who was treated by the doctor — The 2nd applicant is the husband of the patient — Whether the applicants have the requisite locus standi to initiate the application for judicial review — The patient’s medical negligence suit against the doctor was settled amicably without any admission of liability — Consent judgment was recorded — Whether the applicants are estopped from raising issues of negligence in this judicial review application. 1 case
exercise a supervisory not appellate jurisdiction — Defect Liability Period — failure to observe the Non-Rectification Clause — the developer failed to repair and rectify — third-party expert testimony — finding on the usage of the symbol — Tribunal had not committed any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety that warrants its decision be quashed 1 case
Challenge against building plan approval granted by MBPP — Whether the building plan must be signed by the owner of the land — Whether the renovation works have deviated from the approved building plan — Whether the building plan is a circumvention of a pending planning permission application. 1 case
Certiorari — Application to quash award of Industrial Court — Claimant argued retrenchment exercise was mala fide — whether company acted in good faith by employing someone from outside — whether the applicant’s duties & responsibilities were redundant. 1 case
Key Statutes
Federal Constitution
cited in 3 cases Rules of Court 2012
cited in 3 cases Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Cap 177)
cited in 3 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 2 cases Court
of Judicature Act 1964
cited in 2 cases Supreme Court of
Judicature Act
cited in 2 cases Income Tax Act 1967 (Cap 53)
cited in 1 case Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
cited in 1 case Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 1 case Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
w-01a-407-06-2024
SILVERY DRAGON PRESTRESSED MATERIALS CO., LTD. TIANJIN. v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) MENTERI KEWANGAN 3. ) MENTERI KANAN PERDAGANGAN ANTARABANGSA DAN INDUSTRI
14 January 2026
MYCOA
wa-24ncvc-5150-12-2024
1. ) HALIL IZRAN BIN ZAHID 2. ) NAIMAH BINTI MOHAMAD NOH 3. ) SITI NURUL AIN BINTI MOHD ZAWAWI 4. ) LOW PEI FENG 5. ) YULIZAH BINTI PARDI 6. ) FATIN NURAIN BINTI KAMARUZAMAN 7. ) HARYANTI BINTI IBRAHIM 8. ) MOHD SHAHRIL BIN MOHD SHAFI 9. ) MOHD SYAFIQ BIN MOHD SHAH 10. ) NUR HIDAYAH BINTI MARZUKHI 11. ) KAMARUZAMAN BIN AMAT 12. ) MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN ABDUL RAHMAN SITHIRAVEL 13. ) SITI NUR AISHAH BINTI SALIMON 14. ) AZNIZA BINTI MOHAMED 15. ) WAN HABIBULLAH BINTI WAN IBRAHIM 16. ) MOHD RIZAL BIN...
7 December 2025
MYHC
ta-25-3-12-2024
MUHAMAD ZULZAMRI BIN HARUN v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL MOHD FAEZAL BIN MAHAMAD TUDM, YANG DIPERTUA MAHKAMAH TENTERA 2. ) BRIGEDIER JENERAL DR. NORAZRIN BIN SHAMSUDIN TUDM, PEGAWAI SIDANG MAHKAMAH TENTERA/PEGAWAI PENGESAH 3. ) TIMBALAN PANGLIMA TENTERA UDARA LEFTENAN JENERAL DATO’ HAJI MUHAMAD NORAZLAN BIN ARIS 4. ) MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
25 November 2025
MYHC
ta-25-4-12-2024
NORISAM BIN ABDULLAH v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL MOHD FAEZAL BIN MAHAMAD TUDM, YANG DIPERTUA MAHKAMAH TENTERA 2. ) BRIGEDIER JENERAL DR. NORAZRIN BIN SHAMSUDIN TUDM, PEGAWAI SIDANG MAHKAMAH TENTERA/PEGAWAI PENGESAH 3. ) TIMBALAN PANGLIMA TENTERA UDARA LEFTENAN JENERAL DATO’ HAJI MUHAMAD NORAZLAN BIN ARIS 4. ) MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
25 November 2025
MYHC
w-01a-128-03-2021
Hubline Berhad v 1. ) INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB & 38 YANG LAIN 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Highline Shipping Sdn Bhd
20 October 2025
MYCOA
w-01a-142-03-2021
HIGHLINE SHIPPING SDN BHD v 1. ) INTAN WAZLIN BINTI AB WAHAB 2. ) DANNY NG HEAN TEE 3. ) TAI KUANG NENG 4. ) RUZI BIN SUPERMAN 5. ) NORMIZAH BINTI JAMIAN 6. ) WAN BAIZURAH BINTI WAN HUSIN 7. ) VICRAN A/L ELANGGOVEN 8. ) MOHD HAFILDZ BIN ASHA'ARI 9. ) NORA AZILIDA BINTI MAMAT 10. ) RADZIAH BINTI MOHD OMAR 11. ) GEORGE MASILAMONEY 12. ) ANNAMAL GIRIJA 13. ) VISWASEGAR A/L RASIAH 14. ) MOHD FAUZI BIN SALEH 15. ) SHAHRUL ANUAR BIN MAT ZAIN 16. ) SUHANA BINTI MOHD ZUBIR 17. ) HASLIZA BINTI ZAKARIA...
20 October 2025
MYCOA
j-01a-68-01-2024
MMC ENGINEERING GROUP BERHAD v MD GHAZALI BIN ALI
28 September 2025
MYCOA
b-01a-666-12-2023
MULTI-PURPOSE CREDIT SDN BHD v KETUA PENGARAH LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI
22 September 2025
MYCOA
01i-12-05-2025w
PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA v DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HJ ABD RAZAK
12 August 2025
MYFC
01i-13-05-2025w
PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA v DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HJ ABD RAZAK
12 August 2025
MYFC
pa-25-60-11-2024
Molex (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Kon Siang Boon
28 July 2025
MYHC
w-01im-562-10-2023
1. ) SHASHI KUMAR A/L SHANMUGAM 2. ) NG KIM HO 3. ) BOBBY ANAK WILLIAM 4. ) CHAN TUCK LOONG 5. ) SRI RAMESH A/L V.KANNAN v 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 2. ) Peguam Negara Malaysia
9 July 2025
MYCOA
pa-25-63-12-2024
1. ) RAMANI A/P VISVANATHAN 2. ) S. GANESAN AA/L SAMIAH v 1. ) DR. FAWZIAH BT TAN SRI DATO' ISHAK 2. ) MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA
18 May 2025
MYHC
w-01a-574-10-2023
XTREME MERIDIAN SDN BHD v 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) Muhammad Hariz Bin Md Azman
21 April 2025
MYCOA
aa-25-10-04-2024
MOHD FIRDAUS BIN JAHAYA v 1. ) JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI PERAK 2. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM NEGERI PERAK BAGI KUMPULAN SOKONGAN NO. 1 3. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 4. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 5. ) Kerajaan Negeri Perak
14 April 2025
MYHC
pa-25-53-10-2024
1. ) LIM BOON LIN 2. ) CHIAN NGOOK FOR 3. ) LIM HOCK GEE 4. ) CHEN KWAN SOON 5. ) GOH TEONG HOE 6. ) TEH KWENG SEONG 7. ) TAN GHEE HONG 8. ) TAN HONG CHOON 9. ) LIM HUCK HENG 10. ) JERRICK LIM HUCK CHOR 11. ) NG YOKE YOU v 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PULAU PINANG 2. ) PENANG HAN CHIANG ASSOCIATED CHINESE SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION 3. ) Tan Sri Dato' Seri Tan Kok Ping 4. ) Dato' Seri Ooi Soo Hing 5. ) ALM ARCHITECTS ( Disaman Sebagai Firma Perkongsian)
7 April 2025
MYHC
aa-25-17-06-2021
CHA POH ONN v 1. ) TASEK CORPORATION BERHAD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA
18 March 2025
MYHC
pa-25-1-01-2024
RAKAN SETIA HOUSING SDN. BHD. v 1. ) MOHD AZRIZAL BIN ROSLI 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH
9 February 2025
MYHC