Abraham Au Tian Hui

On the court record

A constitutional and administrative-law practice with a distinctive jurisdictional focus across all three court tiers.

Abraham Au Tian Hui appears across the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) and the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions describe a practice centred on constitutional and administrative law. A recurring and significant subject is the jurisdiction of the Syariah High Court and its boundary with the civil courts — a constitutional question about which court may determine a matter where civil and Syariah jurisdictions intersect.

The reported work also engages constitutional and administrative law more generally, together with civil claims pleaded as multiple causes of action including fraud and conspiracy, and family-law questions. A distinctive strand concerns the competency of an appeal and the appellate jurisdiction of the court — the threshold question whether an appeal is properly brought and whether the court has power to hear it. Appearing as respondent, appellant, applicant and plaintiff, the practice is instructed in matters that turn on jurisdiction, constitutional principle and the proper forum for a dispute.

The work turns on questions of law and jurisdiction rather than on primary fact-finding. In the Syariah-jurisdiction matters the argument concerns the constitutional allocation of judicial power between the civil and Syariah courts; in the competency matters whether the appeal is properly constituted; and in the fraud, conspiracy and family matters the elements of the claim and the appropriate forum. The reported reasons frequently address the limits of jurisdiction and the constitutional framework that allocates it.

The overall profile is a constitutional and administrative-law practice with a distinctive jurisdictional focus, conducted at every tier up to the Federal Court. The matters turn on the constitutional allocation of judicial power, the competency of appeals, and the interpretation of statute against the Constitution, rather than on any criminal or commercial-only dimension, marking a practice engaged with the architecture of the courts and the reach of their jurisdiction.