Back
2026 MarsdenLR 2377
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
WONG MEE LING, J
P SARASWATI S PERIASAMY – Appellant
Versus
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD – Respondent
[Application For Judicial Review No: JA-25-20-08/2022]
Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the correctness of the decision. Courts will not re-evaluate evidence or substitute findings unless the lower tribunal’s decision is tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, and applications must strictly adhere to procedural pleading requirements.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20 - Judicial Review - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 53 - Dismissal of employee for misconduct - Requirement to name the correct party in judicial review - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - Scope and ambit - Court sitting in judicial review does not sit as an appellate forum to re-evaluate evidence or merits of tribunal findings. (Paras 1, 12, 19, 21, 61)
(B) Pleadings - Mandatory requirements - Failure to set out specific errors of law or jurisdictional improprieties - Pleadings that merely recite narrative or disagreement with findings are deficient - Need for clear and precise grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety in judicial review applications. (Paras 22, 24, 27)
(C) Judicial Review - Standard of intervention - Courts are concerned with the decision-making process rather than the correctness of the decision itself - No intervention permitted unless the decision is tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety - Specialist tribunal is entitled to assess credibility and weigh factual evidence within its statutory mandate. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, previously a manager, was dismissed by her employer for misconduct involving failures in credit facility oversight and verification. Following a reference of the dispute, an industrial tribunal found the dismissal was with just cause and excuse. The applicant sought judicial review to quash the tribunal's award, alleging various failures by the tribunal in its assessment of evidence and procedures.
Findings of Court:
The court found the application defective due to the failure to cite the tribunal as a necessary party and the failure to properly plead specific errors of law under the applicable rules of court. Furthermore, the court determined that the tribunal had correctly evaluated the evidence and that the application was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate the merits of the dismissal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the judicial review application satisfied procedural requirements under the rules of court, whether the tribunal committed reviewable errors, and whether the court was being invited to exceed its supervisory jurisdiction by re-evaluating the merits of the tribunal’s factual findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The supervisory jurisdiction of the court is limited to reviewing the decision-making process for legality, rationality, and procedural fairness. It does not permit a rehearing or re-evaluation of evidence where the tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction and provided a reasoned award. Furthermore, failure to name the decision-maker as a respondent and the absence of specific, non-conclusory legal grounds for review are fatal to the application.
Result: Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and procedural history of the employment dismissal. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. mandatory procedural requirements for judicial review and necessity of joinder. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 3. assessment of the tribunal's findings for illegality, irrationality, and impropriety. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 4. judicial review is restricted to process, not merits re-evaluation. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an application filed by the applicant for judicial review under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"), seeking an order of Certiorari to quash Industrial Court Award No 851 of 2022 dated 9 May 2022 (encl 40).
[2] After having read the cause papers, affidavits, written submissions and oral arguments of both parties, I dismissed the applicant's amended judicial review application with costs.
[3] Below are my grounds of the decision.
Background
[4] The background facts in this application are gathered from the cause papers and submissions filed by the parties in chronological order.
[5] The applicant was an employee of the respondent Bank. She was, prior to her dismissal, the Head of Business Centre, Batu Pahat and Kluang, drawing a basic salary exceeding RM12,000.00. Her scope of responsibilities included ensuring prudent credit processing, compliance with approval parameters, assessment of borrower viability, and ensuring loan quality.
[6] To the respondent Bank's shocking discovery, the respondent Bank's Risk Management and Group Audit units uncovered extensive irregularities in credit facilities totaling over RM95,000,000.00 involving several groups of companies under the applicant's management. Subsequent investigations revealed material deficiencies in verification, scrutiny, assessment of related-party transactions, and omission of pre-disbursement conditions in several documents within the knowledge of the applicant.
[7] Subsequently, the applicant was dismissed for misconduct following the internal investigations.
[8] The applicant thereafter referred the dispute to the Industrial Court pursuant to s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177].
[9] After a full hearing, the Industrial Court meticulously analyzed each charge and the applicant's explanations before delivering Award No 851 of 2022, finding that the dismissal was with just cause and excuse.
[10] The applicant faced eight (8) charges of misconduct. The Industrial Court found her guilty of four charges—namely charges 1, 4, 5, and 7—relating to (i) breach of parameters, (ii) failure to scrutinize related-party details, (iii) failure to assess viability and repayment capability adequately, and (iv) failure to assess the contractor's ability.
[11] Dissatisfied, the applicant commenced this judicial review application to impugn the said Award.
Court Analysis And Findings
[12] I have identified three (3) issues below for the determination of this Court:
(a) whether the applicant's judicial review application complies with the mandatory requirements under O 53 of the ROC 2012;
(b) whether the Industrial Court committed any jurisdictional error, error of law, or procedural impropriety justifying judicial intervention; and
(c) whether this Court is being invited to impermissibly re-evaluate the merits of the Industrial Court's findings.
(a) Whether The Applicant's Judicial Review Application Complies With The Mandatory Requirements Under Order 53 Of The ROC 2012
[13] Enclosure 40 (Amended Original Summons) was filed by the applicant applying for judicial review to quash the decision made by the Industrial Court regarding her dismissal for misconduct.
[14] Despite two (2) amendments allowed by the Court (encls 38 and 51), the final statement of the applicant
