Click Here
Bias
Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1
In this case, the Penang Municipal Council (Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang) was accused of bias in its decision to grant a development order to a company. The company, Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan (SBS), had applied for the development order to build a shopping mall on a piece of land in Sungai Gelugor. The Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang granted the development order, despite objections from residents of Sungai Gelugor.
The residents of Sungai Gelugor challenged the decision of the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang in court. They argued that the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang was biased in its decision because the chairman of the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang was a shareholder in SBS.
The court found that the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang was biased in its decision. The court held that the chairman of the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang had a conflict of interest because he was a shareholder in SBS. The court also held that the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang had failed to give the residents of Sungai Gelugor a fair hearing.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the issue of bias in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must be impartial in their decision-making and that they must give all interested parties a fair hearing.
Breach of Procedural Fairness
Krishnamoorthy a/l Appannan v Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Pentadbiran Keretapi Tanah Melayu, Sentul, Kuala Lumpur [1999] 1 MLJ 563
In this case, Krishnamoorthy a/l Appannan was a railway employee who was dismissed from his job. Krishnamoorthy challenged his dismissal in court, arguing that the Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam (Lembaga Tatatertib) had breached his right to procedural fairness.
The Lembaga Tatatertib had dismissed Krishnamoorthy for misconduct. However, Krishnamoorthy had not been given an opportunity to explain his conduct before he was dismissed. Krishnamoorthy argued that this was a breach of his right to procedural fairness.
The court agreed with Krishnamoorthy. The court held that the Lembaga Tatatertib had breached Krishnamoorthy's right to procedural fairness by not giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct before he was dismissed. The court ordered the Lembaga Tatatertib to reinstate Krishnamoorthy to his job.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must give all parties affected by their decisions an opportunity to be heard before they make those decisions.
Declaration
Cheah Foong Chiew v Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia [1999] 3 MLJ 110
In this case, Cheah Foong Chiew was a registered engineer who was suspended from practicing engineering by the Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia (Lembaga Jurutera). Cheah Foong Chiew challenged his suspension in court, arguing that the Lembaga Jurutera had no jurisdiction to suspend him.
The Lembaga Jurutera had suspended Cheah Foong Chiew for professional misconduct. However, the Lembaga Jurutera had not followed the proper procedures for suspending a registered engineer. Cheah Foong Chiew argued that this meant that the Lembaga Jurutera had no jurisdiction to suspend him.
The court agreed with Cheah Foong Chiew. The court held that the Lembaga Jurutera had no jurisdiction to suspend Cheah Foong Chiew because it had not followed the proper procedures. The court ordered the Lembaga Jurutera to lift the suspension on Cheah Foong Chiew's practicing certificate.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the jurisdiction of administrative bodies. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must follow the proper procedures when they make decisions.
Declaratory relief
Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin bin Salleh & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 697, SC
In this case, the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan (Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan) was accused of exceeding its powers. The Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan had passed a law that required all landowners in Kelantan to plant rubber trees on their land. Nordin bin Salleh,
Nordin bin Salleh, a landowner in Kelantan, challenged the law in court, arguing that the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan had exceeded its powers.
The court agreed with Nordin bin Salleh. The court held that the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan had exceeded its powers by passing the law. The court ordered the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan to repeal the law.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the powers of state legislatures. The court's decision makes it clear that state legislatures cannot pass laws that exceed their powers.
Dismissal
Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [1999] 5 MLJ 286
In this case, Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad was a police officer who was dismissed from his job. Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad challenged his dismissal in court, arguing that the dismissal was wrongful.
The court found that the dismissal was wrongful. The court held that the police had not followed the proper procedures when they dismissed Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad. The court ordered the police to reinstate Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad to his job.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must follow the proper procedures when they make decisions.
Dismissal from service
Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 261, CA
In this case, Tan Tek Seng was a teacher who was dismissed from his job. Tan Tek Seng challenged his dismissal in court, arguing that he had been dismissed for reasons that were not related to his job performance.
The court found that Tan Tek Seng had been dismissed for reasons that were not related to his job performance. The court held that the dismissal was unfair and that Tan Tek Seng should be reinstated to his job.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must not dismiss employees for reasons that are not related to their job performance.
Duty to give reasons
Minister of Labour, Malaysia v Chan Meng Yuen and another appeal [1992] 2 MLJ 337, SC
In this case, the Minister of Labour was accused of not giving reasons for his decision to dismiss an employee. The employee, Chan Meng Yuen, had been dismissed from his job by the Minister of Labour. Chan Meng Yuen challenged the dismissal in court, arguing that the Minister of Labour had not given reasons for his decision.
The court agreed with Chan Meng Yuen. The court held that the Minister of Labour had not given reasons for his decision to dismiss Chan Meng Yuen. The court ordered the Minister of Labour to give reasons for his decision.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to reasons in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must give reasons for their decisions when they are asked to do so.
Enquiry
Ng Tang Chi v Tan Sri Datuk Chang Min Tat & Ors (Cheah Swee Aun, Intervener) [1999] 1 MLJ 485
In this case, Ng Tang Chi was a businessman who was the subject of an inquiry by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). Ng Tang Chi challenged the inquiry in court, arguing that he had not been given the right to cross-examine witnesses and to obtain copies of reports tendered during the inquiry.
The court agreed with Ng Tang Chi. The court held that Ng Tang Chi had not been given the right to cross-examine witnesses and to obtain copies of reports tendered during the inquiry. The court ordered the MACC to give Ng Tang Chi the right to cross-examine witnesses and to obtain copies of reports tendered during the inquiry.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to a fair hearing in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must give individuals the right to a fair hearing when they are the subject of an inquiry.
Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1
In this case, the Penang Municipal Council (Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang) was accused of bias in its decision to grant a development order to a company. The company, Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan (SBS), had applied for the development order to build a shopping mall on a piece of land in Sungai Gelugor. The Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang granted the development order, despite objections from residents of Sungai Gelugor.
The residents of Sungai Gelugor challenged the decision of the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang in court. They argued that the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang was biased in its decision because the chairman of the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang was a shareholder in SBS.
The court found that the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang was biased in its decision. The court held that the chairman of the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang had a conflict of interest because he was a shareholder in SBS. The court also held that the Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang had failed to give the residents of Sungai Gelugor a fair hearing.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the issue of bias in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must be impartial in their decision-making and that they must give all interested parties a fair hearing.
Breach of Procedural Fairness
Krishnamoorthy a/l Appannan v Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Pentadbiran Keretapi Tanah Melayu, Sentul, Kuala Lumpur [1999] 1 MLJ 563
In this case, Krishnamoorthy a/l Appannan was a railway employee who was dismissed from his job. Krishnamoorthy challenged his dismissal in court, arguing that the Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam (Lembaga Tatatertib) had breached his right to procedural fairness.
The Lembaga Tatatertib had dismissed Krishnamoorthy for misconduct. However, Krishnamoorthy had not been given an opportunity to explain his conduct before he was dismissed. Krishnamoorthy argued that this was a breach of his right to procedural fairness.
The court agreed with Krishnamoorthy. The court held that the Lembaga Tatatertib had breached Krishnamoorthy's right to procedural fairness by not giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct before he was dismissed. The court ordered the Lembaga Tatatertib to reinstate Krishnamoorthy to his job.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must give all parties affected by their decisions an opportunity to be heard before they make those decisions.
Declaration
Cheah Foong Chiew v Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia [1999] 3 MLJ 110
In this case, Cheah Foong Chiew was a registered engineer who was suspended from practicing engineering by the Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia (Lembaga Jurutera). Cheah Foong Chiew challenged his suspension in court, arguing that the Lembaga Jurutera had no jurisdiction to suspend him.
The Lembaga Jurutera had suspended Cheah Foong Chiew for professional misconduct. However, the Lembaga Jurutera had not followed the proper procedures for suspending a registered engineer. Cheah Foong Chiew argued that this meant that the Lembaga Jurutera had no jurisdiction to suspend him.
The court agreed with Cheah Foong Chiew. The court held that the Lembaga Jurutera had no jurisdiction to suspend Cheah Foong Chiew because it had not followed the proper procedures. The court ordered the Lembaga Jurutera to lift the suspension on Cheah Foong Chiew's practicing certificate.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the jurisdiction of administrative bodies. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must follow the proper procedures when they make decisions.
Declaratory relief
Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin bin Salleh & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 697, SC
In this case, the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan (Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan) was accused of exceeding its powers. The Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan had passed a law that required all landowners in Kelantan to plant rubber trees on their land. Nordin bin Salleh,
Nordin bin Salleh, a landowner in Kelantan, challenged the law in court, arguing that the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan had exceeded its powers.
The court agreed with Nordin bin Salleh. The court held that the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan had exceeded its powers by passing the law. The court ordered the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan to repeal the law.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the powers of state legislatures. The court's decision makes it clear that state legislatures cannot pass laws that exceed their powers.
Dismissal
Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [1999] 5 MLJ 286
In this case, Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad was a police officer who was dismissed from his job. Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad challenged his dismissal in court, arguing that the dismissal was wrongful.
The court found that the dismissal was wrongful. The court held that the police had not followed the proper procedures when they dismissed Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad. The court ordered the police to reinstate Mohd Yusof bin Mohamad to his job.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must follow the proper procedures when they make decisions.
Dismissal from service
Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 261, CA
In this case, Tan Tek Seng was a teacher who was dismissed from his job. Tan Tek Seng challenged his dismissal in court, arguing that he had been dismissed for reasons that were not related to his job performance.
The court found that Tan Tek Seng had been dismissed for reasons that were not related to his job performance. The court held that the dismissal was unfair and that Tan Tek Seng should be reinstated to his job.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must not dismiss employees for reasons that are not related to their job performance.
Duty to give reasons
Minister of Labour, Malaysia v Chan Meng Yuen and another appeal [1992] 2 MLJ 337, SC
In this case, the Minister of Labour was accused of not giving reasons for his decision to dismiss an employee. The employee, Chan Meng Yuen, had been dismissed from his job by the Minister of Labour. Chan Meng Yuen challenged the dismissal in court, arguing that the Minister of Labour had not given reasons for his decision.
The court agreed with Chan Meng Yuen. The court held that the Minister of Labour had not given reasons for his decision to dismiss Chan Meng Yuen. The court ordered the Minister of Labour to give reasons for his decision.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to reasons in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must give reasons for their decisions when they are asked to do so.
Enquiry
Ng Tang Chi v Tan Sri Datuk Chang Min Tat & Ors (Cheah Swee Aun, Intervener) [1999] 1 MLJ 485
In this case, Ng Tang Chi was a businessman who was the subject of an inquiry by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). Ng Tang Chi challenged the inquiry in court, arguing that he had not been given the right to cross-examine witnesses and to obtain copies of reports tendered during the inquiry.
The court agreed with Ng Tang Chi. The court held that Ng Tang Chi had not been given the right to cross-examine witnesses and to obtain copies of reports tendered during the inquiry. The court ordered the MACC to give Ng Tang Chi the right to cross-examine witnesses and to obtain copies of reports tendered during the inquiry.
The court's decision in this case is an important precedent on the right to a fair hearing in administrative decision-making. The court's decision makes it clear that administrative bodies must give individuals the right to a fair hearing when they are the subject of an inquiry.
- THE e LAW MATRIX
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- AGENCY
- ANIMALS
- ARBITRATION
- ARMY CASES
- ARMS AND AMMUNITION
- AUCTIONS
- BAILMENT
- BANISHMENT
- BANKING
- BETTING AND GAMING
- BILLS OF SALE
- BURIALS
- CARRIAGE BY AIR AND LAND
- CHARITIES
- CHILDREN/YOUNG PERSONS
- CHINESE LAW AND CUSTOM
- CITIZENSHIP
- CIVIL LAW
- CIVIL LAW ACT
- CONFLICT OF LAWS
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
- CONTRACT
- COPYRIGHT
- COSTS
- CRIMINAL LAW
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- CURRENCY
- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
- DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURY/DEATH
- DEBTORS
- DEFAMATION
- ELECTIONS
- EMERGENCY LAWS
- LAW SOFTWARE,AI & DIGITAL LIBRARY NEWS
