Administrative Law

620 cases · June 2017 to July 2026

Overview

Administrative Law appears in 620 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).

In this practice area

Administrative Law collects the challenges brought against the decisions and actions of public authorities. The dominant procedural vehicle is judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, and the judgments turn on the familiar grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety, irrationality and, increasingly, proportionality.

The leave stage recurs throughout the collection. Judgments examine the adequacy of the Order 53 statement, the role of the Attorney General under Order 53 rule 3(3), the threshold a challenge must cross to obtain leave, and whether a dispute is amenable to review at all. Substantive challenges reach a wide range of public action: the degazetting of a forest reserve, the validity of a fatwa, decisions of the Inland Revenue Board and the Customs authorities, and the exercise of statutory discretions by ministers and public bodies. Constitutional guarantees frequently frame the analysis, including the right to peaceful assembly under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and the doctrine of proportionality applied to restrictions on that right.

Because public-law reasoning attaches to many subjects, the reader will find administrative-law analysis running alongside employment, land, revenue and criminal matters — for example, the review of decisions of the Industrial Court, or challenges to detention and to procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code. The courts repeatedly distinguish between the merits of a decision, which are for the decision-maker, and its legality, which is for the court.

The cases sit mainly in the High Court, which hears judicial review at first instance, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on questions of principle. As a whole the area shows how the Malaysian courts supervise the exercise of public power — insisting on fair procedure and lawful authority — while stopping short of substituting their own view for that of the body Parliament entrusted with the decision.

Case Volume by Year

118

298

168

2017–2026

Key Issues & Sub-Topics

Judicial review — Procedural fairness — Communication of administrative decisions — Duty to provide reasons — Legitimate expectation — Whether public authority proved revocation of applicant's rights had been effectively communicated — Whether reduction of compensation without disclosed reasons rendered decision unlawful and procedurally unfair — Judicial review allowed. 2 cases

ca-25-2-03-2025 ANJUR WAJAR SDN BHD v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang

3 June 2026

ca-25-8-10-2025 ANJUR WAJAR SDN BHD v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang

3 June 2026

Prospective overruling — Federal Court decision in Ang Ming Lee — Non-retrospective effect — Application of Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2024] 8 CLJ 519 (Federal Court) — Preservation of pre-decision approvals 2 cases

ma-25-7-07-2024 1. ) CHEW YU XIANG 2. ) CHEW FUI KINN 3. ) CHEW MEOW CHEN 4. ) GOH HOCK THUAN 5. ) CHEW FUPENG 6. ) GOH WEI JIE 7. ) NUR ATIKAH BINTI ROSLI 8. ) JUSTIN ONG KHENG YANG 9. ) NG THENG EE 10. ) ROBENDRAN A/L PUCHANDRAN 11. ) ARIF QUSYAIRI BIN BUSTAMI 12. ) ALICIA TENG HUI CHING 13. ) AZLAN SHAH BIN MOHAMED AMALI 14. ) HARZIRA BINTI HARUN 15. ) LIM CHUIN RONG 16. ) SENG LOO CHIN 17. ) ONG KIEN GHEE 18. ) TAN GEOK YEONG 19. ) JUMARI BIN KASMIN 20. ) MOHAMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 21. ) TEA WEE LONG 22...

27 April 2026

ma-25-9-08-2024 1. ) GAN MAY PING 2. ) MUHAMMAD SAFUAN BIN SETH 3. ) CHIA KOK HOONG 4. ) SOH ENG GEOK 5. ) KONG KAH SOON 6. ) LIAW LIN LEE 7. ) TEOH CHOON HEA 8. ) SIEW HUEY MING 9. ) CHAN WEY SHEN 10. ) NURJANNAH ZAIHA BINTI HAMZAH 11. ) GOH SEE JAU 12. ) WAHIDANOOR BT WAHID 13. ) TAY CHAU HWEE 14. ) ARNIE SHAZLEEN BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN 15. ) MARINA TAN BINTI MOHD ROSS TAN 16. ) LEE ENG KIAT 17. ) LEE KOK HENG 18. ) CHONG KAH WEI 19. ) LIM HON YOONG 20. ) TAN PING 21. ) LEE YOONG SING 22. ) LEE CHONG HWAI 23. ...

27 April 2026

Limits of prospective overruling — Distinction between invalidity and retrospective disruption — Legal certainty — Reliance — Regulated housing framework 2 cases

27 April 2026

Nullity — Effect of unlawful administrative act — Whether void decisions may be disregarded — Requirement for judicial quashing — Operative effect until set aside 2 cases

27 April 2026

Supervisory jurisdiction — Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety — Independent public law grounds — Limits of Obata-Ambak 2 cases

27 April 2026

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

jb-25-4-03-2024 MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN UMAR v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

30 September 2025

jb-25-6-03-2024 MOHD SAIFUL RAZIEE BIN TUKIMAN v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

30 September 2025

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

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

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

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 cases

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

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

Mandamus — Public duty — Mandatory order compelling public authority to make decision — Whether statutory duty prerequisite to relief — Distinction between compelling performance of public duty and compelling exercise of discretionary power — Whether court may compel authority to entertain request where statute imposes no obligation to decide — Mandamus refused in absence of enforceable statutory duty. 1 case

ma-24ncvc-403-09-2025 TANG GUAN GIM v 1. ) Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah 2. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri

9 July 2026

Mandatory injunction — Section 44 Specific Relief Act 1950 — Mandatory order against public authority — Requirement that act sought to be compelled be clearly incumbent under law — Whether State Authority under legal obligation to determine application for re-alienation — Whether relief available in absence of statutory duty. 1 case

ma-24ncvc-403-09-2025 TANG GUAN GIM v 1. ) Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah 2. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri

9 July 2026

Judicial review — Public law proceedings — Appropriate mode of commencement — Whether application to compel exercise of statutory function should be commenced under O 53 Rules of Court 2012 or by Originating Summons — Court assuming procedural propriety without deciding issue where substantive claim failed for absence of legal duty. 1 case

ma-24ncvc-403-09-2025 TANG GUAN GIM v 1. ) Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah 2. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri

9 July 2026

Judicial review — Leave to commence judicial review — Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 — Arguable case — Realistic prospect of success — Threshold for grant of leave — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court. 1 case

ma-25-11-04-2026 YUEN CHEN FAI v 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN HATTEN SQUARE LOT 1348

8 July 2026

Judicial review — Strata Management Tribunal — Award of Tribunal — Certiorari — Prohibition — Stay of execution — Whether leave should operate as stay — Inter partes hearing for stay application. 1 case

ma-25-11-04-2026 YUEN CHEN FAI v 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN HATTEN SQUARE LOT 1348

8 July 2026

Judicial review — Jurisdictional error — Incorrect identification of claimant — Misdescription of claimant — Legal identity of claimant — Locus standi — Competence of Tribunal — Whether arguable issue disclosed. 1 case

ma-25-11-04-2026 YUEN CHEN FAI v 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN HATTEN SQUARE LOT 1348

8 July 2026

Judicial review — Procedural fairness — Failure to consider defence — Relevant considerations — Whether Tribunal failed to consider material issues raised by respondent — Arguable ground for judicial review. 1 case

ma-25-11-04-2026 YUEN CHEN FAI v 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN HATTEN SQUARE LOT 1348

8 July 2026

Judicial review — Illegality — Irrationality — Natural justice — Scope of judicial review — Supervisory jurisdiction over statutory tribunals — R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor. 1 case

ma-25-11-04-2026 YUEN CHEN FAI v 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN HATTEN SQUARE LOT 1348

8 July 2026

Judicial review — Leave application — Threshold for leave — Arguable case — Whether application frivolous or vexatious — Whether Court should determine merits at leave stage — Order 53 rr 2(4), 3 Rules of Court 2012 Administrative Law — Judicial review — Public authority — Statutory university — Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka — Whether university exercising statutory powers under Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 — Whether amenable to judicial review Administrative Law — Judicial review — Reviewable decision — Meaning of “decision” — Whether decision affected legal rights or obligations — Distinction between reviewable legal decision and non-binding findings — Members of the Commission of Enquiry on the Video Clip Recording of Images of A Person Purported to be an Advocate and Solicitor Speaking on Telephone on Matters of Appointment of Judges v Tun Dato’ Seri Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato’ Sheikh Abdul Halim applied Administrative Law — Judicial review — University administration — Annual Performance Assessment (LPPT) — Performance appraisal of academic staff — Decision of Panel Pembangunan Sumber Manusia (PPSM) — Whether reviewable Administrative Law — Procedural fairness — Performance appraisal — Alleged failure to comply with mandatory administrative circulars — Pegawai Penilai Pertama (PPP) — Pegawai Penilai Kedua (PPK) — Requirement that PPP be of higher grade than Pegawai Yang Dinilai (PYD) — Performance discussions — Written justification for significant divergence in assessment Administrative Law — Procedural impropriety — Whether mandatory procedures contained in administrative circulars binding upon decision-maker — Failure to comply with own published procedures 1 case

ma-25-13-04-2026 MUHAMMAD SUHAIZAN BIN SULONG v Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM)

8 July 2026

Legitimate expectation — Internal administrative circulars — Published procedural framework — Media statement — Alleged expectation that no adverse consequences would arise from participation in staff petition Administrative Law — Natural justice — Performance evaluation — Reduction of marks for discipline and interpersonal relations — Absence of prior written notification of misconduct — Absence of disciplinary proceedings — Failure to provide reasons Administrative Law — Irrationality — Performance assessment — Whether assessment inconsistent with undisputed performance record — Historical LPPT scores exceeding 85% — Alleged inconsistency between appraisal and objective achievements Administrative Law — Relevant and irrelevant considerations — Alleged consideration of participation in UTeMASA petition and separate judicial review proceedings — Allegation of mala fide Administrative Law — Duty to give reasons — Performance appraisal — Significant divergence between first and second evaluators — Whether reasons required under administrative framework Employment — Public university — Academic staff — Annual performance assessment — LPPT — Sasaran Kerja Tahunan (SKT) — ePPTA — Administrative circulars governing performance evaluation Universities — Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka — Performance assessment framework — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 23 Tahun 2024 — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 45 Tahun 2024 — Pekeliling Pentadbiran Bilangan 11 Tahun 2025 Remedies — Certiorari — Declaration — Mandamus — Judicial review — Leave to commence proceedings — Whether leave ought to be granted 1 case

ma-25-13-04-2026 MUHAMMAD SUHAIZAN BIN SULONG v Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM)

8 July 2026

Judicial review — Scope — Distinction between review and appeal — Relevant and irrelevant considerations — Internal dispute within cooperative — Procedural fairness — Duty to give reasons — Whether refusal of licence renewal amenable to judicial review. 1 case

da-25-9-12-2025 KOPERASI ANAK KELANTAN PERANTAUAN MALAYSIA BERHAD v 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI KELANTAN 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

5 July 2026

Procedural impropriety — Failure to consider mandatory statutory considerations — Regulation 46(4)(a)-(d), Part VII Second Schedule, Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 — Whether disciplinary authority considered only existence of criminal charge — Whether non-consideration of mandatory factors rendered decision susceptible to judicial review. 1 case

ma-25-9-04-2026 BADRUL HISHAM BIN AHMAD v 1. ) JAWATAN KUASA TATATERTIB BAGI KUMPULA PENGURUSAN & PROFESIONAL UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA (UTeM) 2. ) Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM)

23 June 2026

Relevant considerations — Statutory discretion — Interdiction pending criminal proceedings — Requirement to consider connection between offence and official duties — Possibility of prejudice to statutory body’s image — Whether officer’s presence would hamper investigations — Whether statutory preconditions complied with. 1 case

23 June 2026

Public authority — Statutory university — Disciplinary committee established under statute — Exercise of disciplinary powers affecting employment rights and emoluments — Whether amenable to judicial review. 1 case

23 June 2026

Certiorari — Mandamus — Declaration — Leave to apply — Challenge against interdiction order — Whether leave ought to be granted. 1 case

23 June 2026

Disciplinary Board — Duty to give reasons — Section 103D(1) Legal Profession Act 1976 — Failure to record reasons for rejecting Disciplinary Committee's findings — Whether decision irrational and perverse — Wednesbury unreasonableness 1 case

ta-17d-1-04-2025 MUHAMMAD ALIF IQBAL BIN MOHD RODI (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA MOHD RODI BIN SHARI) v 1. ) NORFAZILAWATI BINTI CHE HARUN 2. ) MOHD NASIR BIN ABDULLAH (BERAMAL ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA TETUAN NASIR & CO)

17 June 2026

Judicial review — Leave application — Ex parte application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings — Whether award of Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna amenable to judicial review — Order 53 r 3 Rules of Court 2012 1 case

ma-25-5-03-2026 TIBARAT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) TEO CHEE KIONG 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA

24 May 2026

Judicial review — Leave threshold — Whether application frivolous or disclosed arguable case fit for substantive hearing — Low threshold for leave — Applicability of WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd 1 case

ma-25-5-03-2026 TIBARAT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) TEO CHEE KIONG 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA

24 May 2026

Judicial review — Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna — Consumer tribunal award — Award directing applicant company to pay consumer for vehicle repair costs — Whether tribunal allegedly failed to consider recorded agreement, material evidence and contractual warranty terms 1 case

ma-25-5-03-2026 TIBARAT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) TEO CHEE KIONG 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA

24 May 2026

Judicial review — Grounds of review — Illegality — Irrationality — Procedural impropriety — Whether tribunal acted inconsistently with recorded settlement and evidence before it — Whether tribunal asked itself wrong question or failed to consider relevant considerations 1 case

ma-25-5-03-2026 TIBARAT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) TEO CHEE KIONG 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA

24 May 2026

Judicial review — Amenability — Whether statutory finality clause and exclusion of appeal under Consumer Protection Act 1999 ousted supervisory jurisdiction of High Court — Sections 116 and 117 Consumer Protection Act 1999 1 case

ma-25-5-03-2026 TIBARAT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) TEO CHEE KIONG 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA

24 May 2026

Judicial review — Locus standi — “Adversely affected” test — Whether applicant company directly affected by monetary award had standing under Order 53 r 2(4) Rules of Court 2012 1 case

ma-25-5-03-2026 TIBARAT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) TEO CHEE KIONG 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA

24 May 2026

Key Statutes

Rules of Court 2012

cited in 150 cases

Federal Constitution

cited in 84 cases

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

cited in 31 cases

National Land Code (Cap 828)

cited in 30 cases

Industrial Relations Act 1967

cited in 23 cases

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

cited in 22 cases

Specific Relief Act 1950

cited in 21 cases

Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)

cited in 20 cases

Interpretation Act

cited in 19 cases

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

cited in 18 cases

Income Tax Act 1967 (Cap 53)

cited in 16 cases

Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Cap 486)

cited in 14 cases

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

cited in 13 cases

Penal Code (Cap 574)

cited in 12 cases

Criminal Procedure Code

cited in 11 cases

Court Distribution

MYHC 496 MYCOA 80 MYFC 44

Key People & Firms

How many Administrative Law cases are reported in Malaysia courts?

620 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Administrative Law.

What is the main procedure in Administrative Law cases?

Judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 is the principal vehicle. The judgments turn on illegality, procedural impropriety, irrationality and proportionality, and a large group concerns the leave stage — the adequacy of the Order 53 statement, the role of the Attorney General under Order 53 rule 3(3), and whether the dispute is amenable to review.

What kinds of decisions are challenged?

The collection reaches a broad range of public action, including the degazetting of a forest reserve, the validity of a fatwa, decisions of the Inland Revenue Board and Customs, and the exercise of ministerial and statutory discretions. Constitutional guarantees such as the right to peaceful assembly under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution frequently frame the analysis.

Do the courts review the merits of a decision?

The judgments draw a consistent line between the merits of a decision, which belong to the decision-maker, and its legality, which is for the court. The court asks whether the authority acted within its powers and followed a fair procedure, rather than whether it reached the outcome the court would have preferred.