The court ruled that judicial review is premature when administrative proceedings are incomplete, emphasizing respect for tribunal processes and natural justice principles without court-like rigor.

Introduction

[1] This case concerns an application by the applicant for judicial review under O. 53 of the Rules of the High 1980 for an order of certiorari , inter alia , to quash the respondent's decision dated 17 July 2009.

[2] The respondent has argued that this application is premature as the respondent has not completed its investigation.

[3] After considering the submissions filed by both parties, the Court held that this application was prematurely brought before this Court and dismissed the application with costs.

Factual Background

[4] The following facts are not in dispute:

(a) On 3 June 2008, the applicant received a letter from the respondent informing him that a complaint had been lodged against him by Dr. Wan Mazlan bin Mohamed Woojdy, the Secretary of the respondent. The applicant was also notified that an inquiry before the Preliminary Investigation Committee II ("PIC"), convened by the respondent under reg. 26 of the Medical Regulations 1974 to investigate the complaint would be held on 4 July 2008.

(b) At the hearing of the inquiry on 4 July 2008, Dr. Mazlan was absent and the respondent was instead represented by its Assistant Secretary, Dr. Muhammad Yazuran Salij bin Mohd Yasin. Dr. Yazuran's presence and testimony on that date made it clear that the complaint had been brought by Dr. Mazlan on behalf of the respondent and not in his personal capacity.

(c) In view of the fact that the respondent is the true complainant, the applicant objected to the proceedings on the ground that they were against the principles of natural justice. The proceedings were adjourned to enable the applicant to put forward written submissions.

(d) Subsequently, the applicant forwarded to the respondent a written submissions dated 9 September 2008 and a Bundle of Authorities to support the applicant's objection.

(e) On 15 May 2009, the applicant received a letter from the respondent informing him that the inquiry is fixed for continuation on 17 July 2009.

(f) On 17 July 2009, the applicant attended the inquiry before the PIC. Dr. Mazlan was absent and was again represented by Dr. Yazuran. On this date, Dr. Yazuran had once again introduced himself as the Assistant Secretary of the respondent.

(g) The applicant was informed by the Chairman of the PIC that the respondent itself had considered and rejected the applicant's Preliminary Objection, and directed the PIC to proceed with the inquiry ("the respondent's decision").

(h) No grounds of decision for the dismissal of the Preliminary Objection were given at that time, nor were any materials considered by the respondent in forming their decision forwarded to the applicant.

(i) The applicant therefore requested for the inquiry to be adjourned pending an application to Court for judicial review against the respondent's decision.

Applicant's Submission

[5] The crux of the applicant's submission is that the decision referred to by the applicant is in fact the respondent's decision in dismissing the applicant's preliminary objection on breach of the principles of natural justice. This decision was notified by the PIC to the applicant. Hence, this application is certainly not premature since the respondent has already made a decision.

[6] According to the applicant, decided cases have ruled that an objection on bias is generally deemed to have