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
3 17
5 18
2 20
6 21
5 22
15 23
118 24
298 25
168 26
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 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 Limits of prospective overruling — Distinction between invalidity and retrospective disruption — Legal certainty — Reliance — Regulated housing framework 2 Nullity — Effect of unlawful administrative act — Whether void decisions may be disregarded — Requirement for judicial quashing — Operative effect until set aside 2 Supervisory jurisdiction — Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety — Independent public law grounds — Limits of Obata-Ambak 2 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
+ 54 more
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
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
Nullity — Effect of unlawful administrative act — Whether void decisions may be disregarded — Requirement for judicial quashing — Operative effect until set aside 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
Supervisory jurisdiction — Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety — Independent public law grounds — Limits of Obata-Ambak 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Certiorari — Mandamus — Declaration — Leave to apply — Challenge against interdiction order — Whether leave ought to be granted. 1 case
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh 78 Alice Loke Yee Ching 34 Narkunavathy Sundareson 32 Aliza binti Sulaiman 31 Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 28 Azlan bin Sulaiman 20 Rajes Raghavji 20 Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid 19 Shahnaz binti Sulaiman 19 Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali 18 Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan 17 Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz 17 Lim Chong Fong 14 Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 13 Azmi bin Ariffin 12
Top Firms
Attorney General's Chambers 19 Jabatan Peguam Negara 14 Shearn Delamore & Co. 12 Skrine 9 Harold & Lam Partnership 8 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pahang 8 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor 8 Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership 8 Maniam Nair & Co. 7 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri 7 Adillah A. Nordin 7 Cheah Teh & Su 6 T. Thavalingam & Co 6 Azmi & Associates 5 Lim Wei Jiet 5
Top Lawyers
Dato' Malik Imtiaz Sarwar 10 Felicia Lai Wai Kim 8 Lim Yvonne 8 Adillah Ahmad Nordin 7 Nurul Nasyira Mohd Haliemy 7 Akmal Hakim Ahmad Zaharim 7 Fithriyaani Hafzhan Mohd Shaari 7 Shahidah Nafisah binti Leman 5 Vijay Raj 5 Safiyyah binti Omar 5 Dato' Nitin Nadkarni 5 Ebrina binti Zubir 5 Dato' Thavalingam C. Thavarajah 5 Naresh a/l Mayachandran 4 Andy Gan Kok Jin 4
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.
Cases
Page 17 of 25wa-25-536-10-2022
MCE Technologies Sdn Bhd v 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGARAH KASTAM NEGERI JOHOR, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA
24 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-396-12-2023
BOEY CHEE MING v MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA
23 March 2025
MYHC
ba-25-25-03-2024
RUDDY HASMAWIE BIN MOHAMAD v PERTUBUHAN PELADANG KEBANGSAAN
19 March 2025
MYHC
aa-25-17-06-2021
CHA POH ONN v 1. ) TASEK CORPORATION BERHAD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA
18 March 2025
MYHC
aa-25-6-02-2024
Farah Masyitah binti Nordin v 1. ) Tan Sri Dr. Mazlan bin Yusoff (dinamakan di atas kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia) 2. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia 3. ) Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri Perak 4. ) Mastura binti Kahan Saaib (dinamakan di atas kapasiti sebagai Pengetua SMK Aminuddin Baki, Chemor) 5. ) Mohd Lotpi bin Razali (dinamakan di atas kapasiti sebagai Pengetua SMKA Sultan Azlan Shah) 6. ) Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah Kinta Utara 7. ) KEMEN...
18 March 2025
MYHC
ja-12bncvc-30-12-2023
1. ) Bandari Simma Realty Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Subramaniam A/l Paidhatally v TAN BON KIAT
18 March 2025
MYHC
w-01a-425-08-2023
SURUHANJAYA PERSAINGAN MALAYSIA v 1. ) MYTEKSI SDN. BHD. 2. ) GRABCAR SDN. BHD. 3. ) GRAB INC.
18 March 2025
MYCOA
ba-24c-31-07-2024
ES STRUCTURE SDN BHD v SWAJA FACADE SDN BHD
16 March 2025
MYHC
ba-24c-45-10-2024
Swaja Facade Sdn Bhd v ES Structure Sdn Bhd
16 March 2025
MYHC
ka-24ncvc-682-09-2018
MOHD MUSYRIFF BIN AHMAD TAJUDDIN v 1. ) NADIRAH BINTI AHMAD 2. ) AZUDEN BIN AZIZ 3. ) ABDUL RAHAMAN BIN WAN LAH
16 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-544-10-2022
PERWIRA ALAM SDN BHD v 1. ) TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA 2. ) BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA ARTE SUBANG WEST
16 March 2025
MYHC
ba-25-27-05-2021
Ali Nur Fitri Bin Yazid v LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN SELANGOR
12 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-100-03-2024
SEACERA GROUP BERHAD v 1. ) MOHAMAD SUFFIAN BIN ISMAIL 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA
12 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-94-03-2024
MOHAMAD SUFFIAN BIN ISMAIL v 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) SEACERA GROUP BERHAD
12 March 2025
MYHC
wa-24ncvc-3182-08-2024
MURALEE A/L Y.S. MENON v KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA PENCELAH 1. ) FARHANA BINTI FARHAN MENON 2. ) RAHUL BIN FARHAN MENON 3. ) RUBIAH BINTI JAFFAR 4. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN
11 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-211-05-2024
1. ) TAN THUN YANG 2. ) YAP SHWU BING 3. ) YAP THYE TI 4. ) TAN HOCK HENG 5. ) LIM CHOON WEI 6. ) MOHD FAIZRUS ANWAR BIN ROSLAN 7. ) NUR AZERA BINTI TUHAIME 8. ) NG KAR KEN 9. ) CHIN SIT YEE 10. ) KOH TECK LIANG 11. ) PER BEE GEE 12. ) HUI KUET TEANG 13. ) LOW YI FAN 14. ) TAN YI YING 15. ) TANG HON LEONG 16. ) CHAN PUI YIN 17. ) CHANG E-LAINE 18. ) TAN KIM YUAN 19. ) LIM CHOON SIANG 20. ) CHIA SIN WEI 21. ) MOO HUOY YI 22. ) MOO SHWU YI 23. ) JEFFERSON KONG KHA SENG 24. ) LOW SHIN YI 25. ) T...
11 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-356-11-2023
FURNIWEB MANUFACTURING SDN BHD v 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) GAN KOK KUAN
11 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-69-02-2019
1. ) AHMAD KHAIRUDIN BIN ABDUL RAHIM 2. ) ANTHONY MICHAEL A. SAVARIMUTHU 3. ) BORHANUDDIN BIN OSMAN 4. ) LIM CHENG IM 5. ) CHAN MEI-LYNN 6. ) CHUAH CHENG HONG 7. ) POOK LI YOON 8. ) CHARLES TAN KENG LOCK v 1. ) DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) MENTERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN
11 March 2025
MYHC
ba-25-74-12-2023
TALLY DEVELOPMENT (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak 2. ) Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah 3. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor
10 March 2025
MYHC
kb-25-6-12-2024
Adam Bin Ahmad v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI 3. ) Perdana Menteri Malaysia 4. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Menteri Kesihatan Malaysia 6. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) 7. ) Ketua Polis Negara
10 March 2025
MYHC
wa-25-196-04-2024
ZAIDI BIN BAHARUDIN v 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) TH Properties Sdn. Bhd.
10 March 2025
MYHC
aa-24nccarb-1-07-2024
PUNCAK TASNIM SDN BHD v KT ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD
6 March 2025
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-271-07-2024
LIM CHOON LAI v 1. ) HELIOZ (M) SDN BHD 2. ) NG YIM HOCK
6 March 2025
MYHC
w-02ca-1146-07-2023
Kasugi Prima Sdn Bhd v Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd
6 March 2025
MYCOA
w-02ca-1147-07-2023
KASUGI PRIMA SDN BHD v COBRAIN HOLDINGS SDN BHD
6 March 2025
MYCOA