Friday, July 30, 2010

MATERIAL ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

                                                                  PART 1
ART.4(1) of  the FC is the supreme law of the Federation and any law that is passed after Merdeka whcih is inconsistent with  the FC is null and void. 

ART 162 (6)  a Court or Tribunal is empowered to modify any pre-Merdeka law which is inconsistent with the Constitution so as to bring it into accord wit the FC.

Barat Estates Sdn. Bhd & Anor v  Parawakan a/l Subramaniam & Ors [2000] 4 MLJ 107-"constitutionalisation of private law"

=====================================================================
                                                                      PART 2

Associated Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223- traditionally the grounds of review were laid down in this case.

Council for Civil Service v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374- grounds for JR repostulated in this case  (i) impropriety (ii) irrationality (iii) illegality (iv) proportionality ( as a possible additional ground of review in the future)

The Malaysian Courts endorsed the CCSU principles in the following cases:-

1. Minister of Home Affairs v Kesatuan Aliran  Kesedaran Negara [1990] 1 MLJ 351(SC)
2. R. Rama Chandran v The Industrialcourt of malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 (FC)

Courts of Judicature Act 1964- additional powers for JR.

                                                                         PART 3
ART 128 (1) FC- the Federal Court has the jurisdiction  to determine the validity of any State or Federal law.

ART 130 - the Federal Court has the power and the jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion  on a constitutional question if the matter is referred by the Yang di Pertuan Agong.

                                                                       PART  4

Section 84 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - important questions of law can be referred to the Federal Court  for a  final interpretation.

Badan Peguam Malaysia v Kerajaan Malaysia [2008] 1 CLJ 521 (FC)
( In the above case the reference to the Federal Court was to interpret and rule whether an academic (a law professor)  could be appointed as a Judicial Commissioner under Article 123  of the  Federal Constitution. The Court by a majority ruled in favour of the academic.

                                                                     PART 5
The Federal Court has the inherent jurisdiction and power under Rules 137 of the Federal Court 1995 to re-open, re-hear and re-examine  its previous judgment.

No comments:

Post a Comment