Lim Yvonne

On the court record

An appellate constitutional and administrative-law practice in the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

Lim Yvonne appears in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan), and the reported decisions describe an appellate public-law practice. Judicial-review applications recur, and a defining strand engages the interpretation of the Federal Constitution directly — including the operation of Article 4(1) together with Article 4(2) on the striking down of laws inconsistent with the Constitution.

Appearing as appellant and respondent in roughly equal measure, the practice is instructed on both sides of constitutional and administrative disputes at the appellate level. The reported matters engage specific statutory provisions — including sections governing particular powers and remedies — read against the constitutional framework, and questions about the adequacy of the reasoning of the courts below. In one line of matters the Court of Appeal is recorded upholding a High Court decision, reflecting the appellate court's review of a first-instance public-law ruling.

The work turns on questions of law and constitutional interpretation rather than on primary fact-finding. In the judicial-review matters the argument concerns whether a decision-maker acted within jurisdiction and consistently with the Constitution; in the constitutional matters it concerns the validity of a statutory provision and the mechanism by which an unconstitutional law is struck down. The reported reasons address the reach of the Constitution's supremacy clause and the standard by which the appellate courts review the exercise of public power.

The overall profile is an appellate constitutional and administrative-law practice in the two highest courts. The matters turn on the interpretation of the Federal Constitution, the reviewability of public decision-making, and the mechanics of constitutional invalidation, rather than on commercial or criminal litigation, marking a practice concentrated on public-law questions of principle before the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. The recurring Article 4 questions place the practice at the point where the courts test the validity of legislation against the supreme law of the Federation.