Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE – RIGHT TO BE HEARD

What is administrative law in general? 

  •  Administrative law is a large field of law that deals with the agencies that are in charge of a variety of government projects. Administrative law governs agencies, commissions, and boards. Administrative law is frequently encountered by the public in the context of a public benefit that has been refused or terminated.

 When can natural justice be claimed?

  • .In judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative systems, two norms have evolved over time to embody natural justice principles: 1) ‘Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa,’ which states that no one should be judged in his own cause, and 2) ‘audi alteram partem,’ which states that no one should be condemned without first hearing their side of story. 

Q. In the recent case of Nurul Rifayah bt Muhammad Iqbal & Ors v Tan Sri Dato’ Hj Mahiaddin bin Md Yassin & Ors [2021] 12 MLJ 510 the voting rights has been reduced from 21 to 18 years old and will be taken effect starting from July 2021. However, it has been delayed till September 1, 2022 due to the Movement Control Order. This has affected the youth in Malaysia as the Malaysian youth organisation (UNDI 18) has been fighting for these issues. Does this sound fair to you? 

A. If you were in this position, the best way to deal with it is to request the court for a judicial review regarding the issue faced by you. However, there are a few steps that the court will look into before granting  judicial review. This will avoid frivolous or vexatious claims made by the appellant. Hence, O 53 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 will be read by the court during the two stage test to request leave from the court. Once the court sees nothing wrong with proceeding on the judicial review, leave will be granted. 

What are the remedies available for judicial review? 

  •  Habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are examples of public law remedies. In Malaysia, habeas corpus is a well-known prerogative writ that is frequently used to challenge the validity of an ISA detention decision. Regardless of nationality, anybody or someone acting on their behalf can appeal such a writ. In general, a writ of habeas corpus will be issued if the applicant can show that the custody is illegal and that the process of bringing the prisoner to trial is taking too long. It should be remembered that one must appear before a magistrate within 24 hours of being detained.
  •  Certiorari, which means “quashing order,” is a retroactive order that brings a decision made by the authority before the court and asks that it be overturned. Prohibition, on the other hand, is a future command to overturn a decision that is about to be made. It is important to remember that failing to comply with such an order constitutes criminal contempt of court. Meanwhile, mandamus is used to compel the decision–making body to undertake public tasks that it has failed to do. It is enforced to guarantee that public officials carry out their responsibilities. Both certiorari and mandamus can be sought concurrently.

Recent Post

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们