1. By referring to explained cases, explain the meaning of JR.

Judicial review is a branch of administrative law that governs the relationship affairs
of the citizens against the public authorities. It is a procedure that is recognized under
English administrative law and according to Halburys Law of Malaysia, it is clear
that judicial review does takes place in Malaysia. Judicial review is a process whereby
the superior courts exercising its supervisory jurisdiction would look into the validity
of the decision making process undertaken by the public authorities and not the merits
of the case as stated in Hotel Equatorial (M) Sdn Bhd v National Union of Hotel,
Bar and Restaurant and Industrial Court of Malaysia.
Based on the case of Chong Chung Moi @ Christine Chong v The Government Of
State of Sabah & Ors [2007], it is clear that judicial review is acting to ensure that the
public authorities act within the spirit and powers of the statutes and restrain the
decision making bodies from acting outside and abuse its powers. Therefore, it shows
that Malaysian Courts uphold the doctrine of rule of law by allowing check and
balance. Thus, the Courts can always act to cure any form of injustice within the
parameter and the scope of the doctrine of separation of powers, as ruled in the recent
case of Nik Noor Hafizi Nik Noor Ibrahim & Ors v PP [2014].
O. 53 of Rules of Court 2012 can be considered as a legal framework that governs
the judicial review. It generally outlines the procedures that need to be adhered. In the
case of Roland Chong Yew Soon v Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya [2006], it was
clearly stated that if applicant fail to comply with the rules state under O. 53, then it is
very likely that their applications would fail.
The grounds to ask for judicial review was initially recognized under the English law
in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service and the Malaysian
Courts have recognized similar grounds to revisit the decision that have already been
made. One of the grounds that the adversely affected individual could show would be
when the decision making body had breached the rule of natural justice. The second
ground that could justify a judicial review is that the public authority had abused its
discretionary powers. The third ground is where the decision making body had acted
unreasonably. However, these grounds are non-exhaustive.
The first ground that could be grant for review is where the adversely affected person
alleges the decision-making body had infringed or had ignored the rules of natural
justice when making the decision. Rules natural justice has two limbs, first is the right
to be heard and the second one is the rule against bias. Malaysian Courts in general
recognized the rule of natural justice and thus, this basis standard of fairness are
included in the procedures.
A right to be heard includes various elements and the House of Lords in Ridge v
Baldwin held that the decision to terminate the applicant was not valid because he
was removed from his position without being heard. Therefore, it is evident that the
non-compliance of natural justice would invalidate the decision made and this line of
reasoning had been accepted in Malaysia. This can be seen in the case of Ketua
Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng, where it was held by Raja Azlan Shah that the
adversely affected person cannot be condemned unheard. Therefore, this reasoning

shows that it is in line with Ridge v Baldwin. However, there have been cases which
have departed from this line of reasoning. It is clear in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v
Kekatong Sdn Bhd that this right is not an absolute right.
There can be two situations where rules against bias could be relevant. It is clear that
the decision maker must free from bias as clearly stated in the recent case of Everise
Sprint (M) Sdn Bhd v Menteri Kewangan Malaysia & Anor [2014]. The first
situation could be when the decision maker has a pecuniary interest in the matter that
is being decided or the decision maker has a personal interest in the matter that has
been decided. In essence, it must be conclusive evidence that the decision maker had
acted in a bias manner and should not appear in a subsequent committee which would
hear the appeal, as ruled in Darshan Singh v Farid Kamal Hussain. Therefore, it is
clear that decision could be invalidated if there is evidence to show that the decision
maker had infringed the rule against bias. Both these rules ensure that the decision
maker is completely neutral and is able to make decision purely based on the
surrounding facts.
The next ground that an applicant could allege is that the decision maker had abused
the discretionary powers vested in him under statutory law. It refers to the decision
maker right to choose a particular right course of action. It essential that the
discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and correctly as stated in the very
recent case of Teguh Kemajuan Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Kota Tinggi & Anor
[2015]. The Malaysian Courts have recognized the principle established in Padfield v
Minister of Agiculture, Fisheries and Food, that is the decision maker who exercise
discretionary power cannot acted in an unfettered or unrestrained manner. Therefore,
the decision made may be held invalid if discretion was used for an improper purpose,
as ruled in Hong Leong Equipment Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Chuan & Other Appeals.
Applying the principles in Padfield, it was also noted that the decision maker did not
abuse his power if it is clear that the decision made was to maintain industrial
harmony. If the facts show that the decision makers power was done in ultra vires
and according to Porter v Magill, it can be argued that the discretionary powers were
excersiced in a manner that is said to be abusive and unlawful.
The next ground would be the classic test of unreasonableness, which was formulated
by Lord Greene in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury
Corporation that is something that is so absurd and must not be done. Malaysian
Courts have also followed such principle. If the facts show that the discretion was
used for an improper purpose and doesnt fit within Wednesburys sense, it is thus
unreasonable and liable to be set aside as being irrational, which can be seen in the
very recent case of james Clement Hii Gin Kion v Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
[2015]. Therefore, the Courts will invalidate the decision made if it is clearly shown
that the decision was so absurd that no reasonable person would reach the same
conclusion as it devoid of logic as ruled in Chong Lee Fah v The New Straits Times
Press (M) Bhd.