SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 MarsdenLR 2200

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
TESCO STORES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LEMBAGA RAYUAN PULAU PINANG & ORS – Respondent
[Application for Judicial Review No: 25-59-04/ 2012]



The court confirmed that an Appeal Board can modify planning conditions and that a requirement for a full concrete drain is a reasonable planning decision.

Headnote:(A) Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 - Judicial Review - Planning Permissions - The Appeal Board allowed the 3rd Respondent's appeal and modified the planning conditions for a full concrete monsoon drain instead of a half-drain. Issues of procedural authority and need for a full concrete drain were central. The Applicant's claim of the AB exceeding jurisdiction was dismissed as the AB acted within statutory power under sections 23(3)(d) and 36(10)(g). (Paras 4, 22, 23, 55, 59)

(B) Judicial Review - The court reaffirmed that it only exercises supervisory powers, not appellate jurisdiction. (Paras 22, 24, 25).

Facts of the case:
The Applicant sought judicial review against the AB’s decision to impose a full concrete drainage requirement, challenging the AB’s authority and the reasonableness of the condition.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the AB's decision to require a full monsoon drain, affirming the importance of sound planning practices and rule adherence.

Issues: Whether the AB possessed the competence to modify conditions regarding the planning permissions and whether the drainage condition was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the AB acted within its powers and that the need for a full concrete drain was reasonable based on planning principles.

Result: Judicial review application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal and decisions (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. applicant's grounds for judicial review (Para 4)

[1] The Applicant by this judicial review proceedings sought to quash the decision made on 20 March 2012 by the Appeal Board, Penang (AB) in Appeal No: LR/SP/32/2009 (heard together with another Appeal No, LR/SP/1/2010). Both the said appeals before the AB (established under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (TCPA)) were brought by the 3rd Respondent.

[2] The 3rd Respondent's appeals before the AB were in respect of the following, namely,

(a) a Planning Permission granted to the Applicant; and

(b) an amended Planning Permission granted to one DNP Hartajaya Sdn Bhd (DNP) on 31 December 2009 by the 2nd Respondent who was the local Planning Authority. The Planning Permission and the Amended Planning Permission had been granted despite representations made by the 3rd Respondent as to certain conditions to be imposed as well should such permissions be granted

[3] The 3rd Respondent's appeal was allowed by the AB after having heard the parties The AB had ordered that the drainage requirement or condition to be complied with by both the Applicant and DNP was to be substituted with the requirement that a complete concrete monsoon drain be fully constructed along the drain reserve found at the boundaries of the separate but contiguous properties belonging to the 3rd Respondent, DNP and the Appellant; this was to be in substitution to the originally required construction of a 'half-concrete monsoon drain' at that location.

[4] The Applicant's case before this court was essentially that the AB had committed an error of law and/or had failed to take into account relevant considerations and/or had made an irrational or unreasonable decision when, firstly, AB entertained the 3rd Respondent's appeal and held that the 3rd Respondent was entitled to bring and maintain their Appeal No LR/SP/1/2010 and, secondly, in allowing the said appeal on its merit, in any event. It was also submitted by the Applicant that the AB had exceeded their statutory powers when in ordering a 'whole concrete monsoon drain' or 'full drain' to be constructed the AB was imposing a new condition, which the AB was not empowered to do in law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top