Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Right to Be Heard – There is no explicit provision in either Act 829 or A1641 that mandates the right to be heard for applicants or affected parties. Courts have observed that while the right to be heard is a fundamental natural justice principle, it is not expressly legislated within these Acts. Sources: STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam, STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam, STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam, KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs KERAJAAN NEGERI MELAKA & ORS (ENCL 1) - High Court Malaya Melaka
Purpose of the Acts – Both Acts were enacted as temporary measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, not to establish permanent rights or remedies. Their primary focus is on providing reliefs such as extensions of time, exemptions, or postponements, with the overarching goal of easing economic and contractual hardships caused by the pandemic. Sources: CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur, STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam, STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam
Legal Validity and Ultra Vires Claims – Some provisions, such as s 38C of A1641, have been challenged as ultra vires the Federal Constitution, but courts have upheld their constitutionality, emphasizing that these are temporary relief measures. The Acts' temporary nature means they do not alter fundamental rights permanently but provide interim relief. Sources: CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
Application and Interpretation – Courts have applied a purposive approach, interpreting sections like s 7 and s 9(1) of Act 829 as enabling temporary reliefs rather than creating permanent rights. The Acts are given retrospective effect from March 18, 2020, to cover the period of the pandemic's impact. Sources: PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD vs TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD - High Court Malaya Shah Alam, Panzana Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. vs Turnpike Synergy Sdn. Bhd., Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd vs Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd
Main Reliefs and Limitations – The reliefs sought under these Acts include declarations of invalidity of certain notices or exemptions, and extensions of time for contractual obligations. However, the Acts do not specify a right to be heard before such reliefs are granted, reinforcing their nature as emergency measures. Sources: STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam, STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam, STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam
The Covid-19 Acts (Act 829 and A1641) are designed as temporary legislative measures to reduce the pandemic's impact, primarily through reliefs like extensions and exemptions. They do not explicitly guarantee the right to be heard, although natural justice principles suggest that affected parties may argue such rights should be observed. Courts have consistently viewed these Acts as emergency relief statutes, emphasizing their temporary and non-permanent scope, and have upheld their constitutionality despite challenges. The Acts' interpretation aligns with their purpose: to provide swift, temporary relief without altering fundamental rights permanently.
References:- CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur- STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam- STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam- STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam- KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs KERAJAAN NEGERI MELAKA & ORS (ENCL 1) - High Court Malaya Melaka- PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD vs TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD - High Court Malaya Shah Alam- Panzana Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. vs Turnpike Synergy Sdn. Bhd.- Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd vs Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Malaysia enacted emergency legislation like the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 (Act 829) and related provisions in Act A1641 to provide swift relief for economic and contractual hardships. But what about the right to be heard—a cornerstone of natural justice? Does this fundamental principle apply under these acts? This blog post dives into the legal question: Right to be Heard - under Covid Act 2020 Act 829 and Acy A1641, examining court interpretations, statutory foundations, and practical implications.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on available legal sources and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
The right to be heard is a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness and natural justice, rooted in Malaysia's Federal Constitution and common law principles. Courts have consistently held that affected individuals must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any adverse decision impacting their rights. As emphasized in key rulings, reasonable opportunity of hearing is a fundamental right, and justice must be manifestly seen to be doneIN RE: THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. VS . - 2021 1 Supreme 228.
While Act 829 and Act A1641 do not explicitly mandate a right to be heard, these principles generally overlay administrative actions. Act 829, gazetted on 23 October 2020 with retrospective effect from 18 March 2020, focuses on temporary reliefs like extensions of time for contractual obligations KNM PROCESS SYSTEMS SDN BHD vs CECA GOLD COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR - Court of Appeal PutrajayaPANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD vs TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD - 2022 MarsdenLR 2063. Similarly, Section 38C of Act A1641 provides extensions as temporary reliefsCHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - 2024 MarsdenLR 171. Courts interpret these acts purposively, prioritizing pandemic mitigation over permanent rights alterations PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD vs TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD - 2022 MarsdenLR 2063.
During the pandemic, swift enforcement was crucial, but procedural fairness remained paramount. The Supreme Court has stressed that even in emergencies, strict and stern action should be taken against those who violate Guidelines and SOPs, but only after affording parties a chance to present their case IN RE: THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. VS . - 2021 1 Supreme 228. This applies to measures under Act 829, such as reliefs under Sections 7 and 9(1), which cover works from 18 March 2020 onward PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD vs TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD - 2022 MarsdenLR 2063.
However, sources indicate no explicit hearing provision in these acts. Courts observe that while natural justice suggests opportunities for response, the acts' temporary nature as emergency relief statutes limits such mandates STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah AlamSTEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah AlamSTEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah AlamKAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs KERAJAAN NEGERI MELAKA & ORS (ENCL 1) - High Court Malaya Melaka. For instance, challenges to Section 38C of Act A1641 as ultra vires the Constitution were dismissed, upholding its role in providing interim relief without procedural hearings CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - 2024 MarsdenLR 171.
These acts primarily offer reliefs like exemptions, postponements, and time extensions for pandemic-impacted contracts CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - 2024 MarsdenLR 171STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam. Affected parties seeking declarations of invalid notices or extensions typically do not require pre-decision hearings, as the statutes emphasize speed STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah AlamSTEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam.
Yet, natural justice may still apply indirectly:- Notice and Response: Authorities should generally provide adequate notice before adverse actions, allowing explanations IN RE: THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. VS . - 2021 1 Supreme 228.- Challenges to Decisions: Depriving a hearing could render actions vulnerable to judicial review as violating constitutional guarantees.- Temporary Scope: Reliefs are not permanent; post-pandemic, standard procedures resume Panzana Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. vs Turnpike Synergy Sdn. Bhd.Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd vs Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd.
In practice, courts apply a purposive approach, ensuring Act 829's Part II (retrospective from 18 March 2020) aids relief without rigid hearings PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD vs TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD - 2022 MarsdenLR 2063.
Emergencies justify procedural relaxations, but core fairness endures:- No Explicit Exclusions: Documents do not indicate hearing waivers in Act 829 or A1641 STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - High Court Malaya Shah Alam.- Ultra Vires Challenges: Upheld as constitutional temporary measures CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - 2024 MarsdenLR 171.- Risk of Unconstitutionality: Actions without hearings may be challenged, especially if depriving liberty or property Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) VS Union of India - 2017 8 Supreme 684.
To navigate these acts effectively:- For Authorities: Establish clear notice procedures and reasoned decisions, even in expedited contexts IN RE: THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. VS . - 2021 1 Supreme 228.- For Affected Parties: Document requests for hearings; seek judicial review if denied fairness.- Businesses and Individuals: Leverage reliefs under Sections 7 and 9(1) of Act 829, noting retrospective coverage KNM PROCESS SYSTEMS SDN BHD vs CECA GOLD COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR - Court of Appeal Putrajaya.- Maintain Vigilance: Follow SOPs while asserting rights harmoniously IN RE: THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. VS . - 2021 1 Supreme 228.
Under COVID-19 Act 2020 (Act 829) and Act A1641, the right to be heard is not explicitly legislated but generally upheld via natural justice principles. These temporary acts prioritize pandemic relief, with courts balancing speed and fairness CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS vs MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... - 2024 MarsdenLR 171IN RE: THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. VS . - 2021 1 Supreme 228. Key takeaways:1. Natural justice mandates reasonable hearing opportunities before adverse actions.2. Emergency measures allow flexibility, but procedural safeguards are vital Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) VS Union of India - 2017 8 Supreme 684.3. Consult professionals for case-specific application, as interpretations evolve.
Stay informed on Malaysia's post-pandemic legal landscape to protect your rights effectively.
Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 (Act 829); and (c) A declaration that s 38C of Act A1641 is ultra vires the Federal Constitution (FC). ... -19), 2020 (Akta 829). ... [31] Section 38C(3) of Act A1641 is an extension of the temporary reliefs....
[56] There is no express provision under Act 829 and Act 1641 on that right to be heard must be given to the Applicants. ... [57] While it could be argued that the right to be heard is a natural justice right which need not be legislated, it must be borne in mind that the purpose of the Covid-19 Act was to mitigate....
of Act A1641]. ... [56] There is no express provision under Act 829 and Act 1641 on that right to be heard must be given to the Applicants. ... [Act 829 And Act A1641 Collectively Referred To As COVID-19 Act] Reliefs Sought [2] The main reliefs sought by the App....
[56] There is no express provision under Act 829 and Act 1641 on that right to be heard must be given to the Applicants. ... [Act 829 And Act A1641 Collectively Referred To As COVID-19 Act] Reliefs Sought [2] The main reliefs sought by the Applicants are: (i) a declaration ... [48] Based on the w....
[12] In reply learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the notice of termination was issued after the coming into force of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020(Act 829). ... -19) 2020 (Akta 829); (c) Satu deklarasi bahawa Notis Penamatan tersebut adalah batal dan tidak sah dan tiada kesan kerana ia ultra....
[38] By that extension of time granted until April and May 2020, Covid- 19 had already spread in Malaysia and as said earlier, Act 829 is given retrospective effect from 18 March 2020. Hence, the works for the EPC Contract are covered by Act 829. ... [35] In this regard, it is also important to note Act 829 has been gazetted on 23 O....
Whether Plaintiff Can Rely On Sections 7 And 9(1) Act 829 [42]Part II of Act 829 [Part II (Act 829)] is given retrospective effect from 18 March 2020 - please refer to s 5(1) Act 829. ... [48] Secondly, I am of the following view regarding Act 829 and its s 7: (1) the long title in Act#HL....
(MD) No.829 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT in respondent submitted that the order and directions issued by this in Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID
829 and its s 7 (1)the long title in Act 829 states that Act 829 provides for “temporary measures to reduce the impact” of Covid-19 virus [Object (Act 829)]. ... The Object (Act 829) does not provide for any permanent relief due to the adverse effect of Covid-19 virus. ... Whether Plaintiff can rely....
(1)the long title in Act 829 states that Act 829 provides for “temporary measures to reduce the impact” of Covid-19 virus [Object (Act 829)]. ... The Object (Act 829) does not provide for any permanent relief due to the adverse effect of Covid-19 virus. ... Whether Plaintiff can rely on ss 7 and 9(1) Act#HL....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
