Azimah binti Omar

On the judicial record

An appellate judge whose reported corpus concentrates on administrative law against the State, land-acquisition compensation, and the enforcement of commercial arbitration under the Arbitration Act 2005.

Justice Azimah binti Omar sits mainly in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), with some Federal Court and earlier High Court work, and the reported decisions in this corpus are strongly weighted toward administrative, land and commercial-arbitration appeals. A significant public-law decision concerns an application for mandamus to compel the Government to transfer land pursuant to an earlier High Court declaration, and whether section 29(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 bars an order for the recovery of land against the Government — a question about the limits of coercive relief against the State.

Land-acquisition and compensation questions recur, including whether a paymaster such as an electricity utility has standing to intervene in a land-reference proceeding without filing the prescribed form, and revenue law appears in an appeal on whether loan debts waived during a year of assessment are taxable, affirming the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. Administrative review of police disciplinary charges also features, including whether charges were defective for failing to state the period of the alleged misconduct.

Arbitration is a distinct commercial strand. Decisions address the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act 2005, including a dispute over the supply of cost-plus valves and alleged breaches of express and implied contractual terms, and the applicability and interpretation of an arbitration clause and an exclusive-jurisdiction clause as against a lower-tier subcontractor assigned the rights under a contract. Property and trespass appeals round out the docket, including competing appeals over the use of an access road pending a land acquisition. Contract-illegality appeals also come before the panel, including sale-and-purchase agreements said to be sham transactions disguising an unlicensed moneylending arrangement contrary to the Moneylenders Act 1951. The corpus reflects an appellate judge whose reported work concentrates on the boundary between private rights and State power and on the enforcement of commercial arbitration, decided by close attention to the governing statute and to whether the court or tribunal below applied the correct legal test to the facts it found.