Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Definition of Procedural Impropriety - Procedural impropriety refers to failures by an authority to observe procedural rules expressly laid down in legislation or to act with procedural fairness, even if there is no denial of natural justice. It encompasses breaches of specific procedural rules or failures to follow statutory requirements ["
INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs NAGARAJAN THAMBILAH - Court Of Appeal
"], ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor
"], ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor - High Court
"].Scope and Nature - It includes:
Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor - High Court
"], ["INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs NAGARAJAN THAMBILAH - Court Of Appeal
"].INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs NAGARAJAN THAMBILAH - Court Of Appeal
"], ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor
"].Failures that affect substantive rights of affected parties, such as denial of the opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 287"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 624"], ["
SULINDER KAUR PIKAN vs SYARIKAT RODA BULK MOVER SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE - High Court
"].Judicial Review and Main Points - Courts scrutinize administrative decisions not only for their substantive legality but also for procedural compliance, including whether procedural rules were breached or whether the decision-making process was tainted by procedural unfairness ["
Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor
"], ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor - High Court
"], ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor - High Court
"], ["DA TONG SHI JE SUPPLIES & SERVICES SDN BHD LWN. MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA MALAYSIA & SATU LAGI - High Court
"].Examples and Applications - Cases highlight that procedural impropriety can involve:
INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs NAGARAJAN THAMBILAH - Court Of Appeal
"], ["SULINDER KAUR PIKAN vs SYARIKAT RODA BULK MOVER SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE - High Court
"].Actions that deprive parties of fair opportunity, e.g., not allowing cross-examination ["
ROSHAIZAD BIN WAN LONG vs PENDAKWA RAYA - 2025 MarsdenLR 5377
"].Analysis and Conclusion - Procedural impropriety is a key ground for judicial review, ensuring that administrative bodies adhere strictly to procedural rules and fairness principles. Breaches of these rules can invalidate decisions, especially when such breaches impact substantive rights or result in unfair outcomes. The courts emphasize that procedural fairness is integral to justice and that procedural lapses, even if not amounting to natural justice violations, can constitute grounds for setting aside decisions ["
Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor
"], ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor - High Court
"], ["INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs NAGARAJAN THAMBILAH - Court Of Appeal
"].References:- ["
INSTITUT AKAUNTAN MALAYSIA & ANOR vs NAGARAJAN THAMBILAH - Court Of Appeal
"]- ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor
"]- ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor - High Court
"]- ["Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 vs Lee Boon Peng & Anor - High Court
"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 287"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 624"]- ["SULINDER KAUR PIKAN vs SYARIKAT RODA BULK MOVER SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER CASE - High Court
"]- ["DA TONG SHI JE SUPPLIES & SERVICES SDN BHD LWN. MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA MALAYSIA & SATU LAGI - High Court
"]- ["ROSHAIZAD BIN WAN LONG vs PENDAKWA RAYA - 2025 MarsdenLR 5377
"]
In the realm of Malaysian law, ensuring fair decision-making processes is paramount, especially in administrative, employment, and matters. But what happens when a procedure goes wrong not just formally, but in a way that causes real harm? This is where comes into play. If you're facing a challenge to a decision from a tribunal, employer, or public body, understanding this concept can be crucial.
This article explores the legal question: . We'll break down its definition, criteria for establishment, key judicial precedents, and practical implications, drawing from established Malaysian jurisprudence. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
is a classic ground for , originating from the landmark UK case Council of Civil Service Unions & Ors v Minister for the Civil Service AC 374, widely adopted in Malaysia. As articulated by Lord Diplock, it covers:- Failure to observe basic rules of , such as the right to be heard () and the rule against bias ()
.- Failure to follow procedural rules expressly laid down in the
.
In , this applies broadly, including in employment disputes where serious unfairness in conduct can breach
. Even statutory limits, like under , do not exclude , as it embodies constitutional fairness principles
.
Courts aim for both (fair process) and (fair outcome). elevates a mere technical slip to a challengeable error when it causes or injustice
.
Traditionally, rules were classified as mandatory or directory, but modern approaches focus on impact: Did the breach affect the decision's fairness or the party's rights? This shift prioritizes merits over rigid formalism
.
To succeed in a claim, litigants must prove a procedural breach leading to tangible harm. Here's a synthesized framework from Malaysian case law:
.
Non-compliance with statutory procedures, such as under the for
.
Demonstration of Substantive Injustice or Prejudice:
.
Mere irregularity without outcome impact won't suffice—courts seek material harm, like
.
Contextual Application:
.
.
| Criterion | Description | Key Indicators | Supporting References ||----------|-------------|----------------|-----------------------|| Breach of | Failure in right to be heard or bias | No opportunity to respond; prejudiced decision-maker |
|| Statutory Procedural Non-Compliance | Ignoring express rules in enabling law | Violation of inquiry protocols |
|| Substantive Prejudice Test | Actual injustice suffered | Material harm to rights/outcome |
|| Non-Excludability | Cannot be statutorily abrogated | Applies despite limits |
|
emphasize . In disciplinary proceedings under the , a former Vice-Chancellor's appeal succeeded because he was denied cross-examination opportunities, violating . The court held: procedural fairness was violated as the accused was deprived of cross-examination opportunities, undermining the admissibility of evidence and the integrity of the 's decision
. The decision was quashed, reinstating the appellant, as the procedural flaws necessitated the quashing of the disciplinary body's decision
.
Contrast this with cases where no substantial injustice is shown. In a tribunal challenge, the dismissed an appeal, affirming: remedies are discretionary and not granted without substantial injustice
. No breaches occurred, so remedies were denied
.
In administrative contexts, like land acquisition (though more common in Indian precedents influencing Malaysian law), procedural lapses such as non-service of notices or hasty objection rejections vitiate proceedings. For instance: Non-service of individual notices on occupiers is mandatory and its non-issuance vitiates acquisition proceedings 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 2469. Similarly, it must also be shown that the had affected the Appellant's substantive rights
.
These examples illustrate that courts, per Lord Diplock's grounds, intervene for illegality, irrationality or only with proven prejudice
.
Today's Malaysian judiciary uses a purposive lens, asking if the process was fair and effective, not merely formal. Hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 2469. In employment, flawed inquiries compound into substantive wrongs if charges aren't proven
. This balances efficiency with rights protection.
Always gather evidence of specific flaws and impacts.
requires proving a breach ( or statutory) causing real injustice, via the prejudice test: What injustice has the party suffered?
. This safeguards against trivial claims while upholding fairness, as in Malaysian precedents
.
Key Takeaways:- Focus on actual harm, not technicalities.- Cite or statutory breaches clearly.- remains a vital tool.
For personalized guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on evolving case law to protect your rights effectively.
#ProceduralImpropriety #MalaysianLaw #JudicialReview
The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety... ... ... I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety' rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. ... [22] These were termed as procedural impropriety where there was a failure on the part of the administrative tribunal to observe #HL_ST....
impropriety. ... 1997 MarsdenLR 1495 “In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp 410–411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. ... The court hearing application for judicial review are allowed to scrutinize not only the decision-making process but also for substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also proportionality.
impropriety. ... 1997 MarsdenLR 1495 “In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp 410–411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. ... The court hearing application for judicial review are allowed to scrutinize not only the decision-making process but also for substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also proportionality.
1997 MarsdenLR 1495 “In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp 410–411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. ... The court hearing application for judicial review are allowed to scrutinize not only the decision-making process but also for substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also proportionality. ... [Emphasis added] [21]The issue....
It is the morality of the justice at the hands of procedural law troubles a judge's conscience. The humanist rule that the procedural law should be handmaid, not the mistress. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, procedural, inasmuch as substantive. ... 5.6 The case management schedule was procedural aspect. At the altar of procedure substantive rights of the parties could not be sacrificed. Right to lead evidence in the suit proceedings is substantive and valuable ....
It is the morality of the justice at the hands of procedural law troubles a judge's conscience. The humanist rule that the procedural law should be handmaid, not the mistress. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, procedural, inasmuch as substantive. ... 5.6 The case management schedule was procedural aspect. At the altar of procedure substantive rights of the parties could not be sacrificed. Right to lead evidence in the suit proceedings is substantive and valuable ....
Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223; (c) procedural impropriety covering failure: (i) to observe basic rules of natural justice; (ii) to act with procedural fairness; (iii) to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction ... To merit curial intervention, the applicant concerned had to establish that 'errors' in the nature of 'illegality', 'irrationality' or 'procedural impropriety' (and maybe 'proportionality') had been commi....
And in this regard, it must also be shown that the procedural impropriety had affected the Appellant's substantive rights. ... Hence, we would regard this as a manifestation of procedural impropriety as envisaged by Lord Diplock in CCSU (supra) at p 411. ... Our Decision [34] This appeal raises several issues pertaining to the substantive and procedural aspects of the law on administrative disciplinary proceedings. ... DAC) and substitute its own view thereto, save a....
impropriety". ... impropriety). ... impropriety": Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. ... Industrial court of Malaysia & Anor, [1997] 1 MLJ 145 are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety which means, the court in practice is permitted to scrutinise a decision not only for process but also for substance." ... Although a litigant may have threshold locus standi in the sense discussed, he may, for substantive reasons, be disentitled to declaratory relief. This, then,....
[1995] 3 MLJ 369 should not be applied to cases of breach of natural justice or procedural impropriety; and (iii) the Award dated 3 February 2016 should therefore be quashed. ... The learned judge had also given detailed and comprehensive grounds for arriving at his findings that there was no breach of natural justice and/or procedural impropriety by the President in the decision making process.
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. But when the decision-making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles viz. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner.
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. But when the decision-making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles viz. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality.
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. But when the decisionmaking process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles viz.
However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite law, must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. But when the decision-making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles viz. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. But when the decision-making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles viz.
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
