Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final Exam - Nur Angghraini Aqlili Binti Kamaruhizam - LAW309G6
Final Exam - Nur Angghraini Aqlili Binti Kamaruhizam - LAW309G6
Question 1:
The question is whether Kamaruddin has the right to file a judicial review based on
violations of natural justice.
By applying the laws to the problem, we can see that Kamaruddin's Natural
Justice has been violated. To begin with, he only ever received a call alerting him that
he would be going before the Disciplinary Board on December 3rd, 2021, three days
after tweeting about Encik Samad's activities. As far as we can see, this is inadequate
notice because he was not given enough time to prepare for his case and was not given
the option to postpone the hearing. Dixon v Commonwealth [1981] 3 ALR 289 is an
example of a decided case that we may apply, in which the court stated that a person
must be informed of the accusations to which he must reply, as well as the substance of
the charges if they are being used against him. Kamaruddin has the right to know
whatever he needs to know before to or during the hearing. However, when he enquired
as to why he needed to come before the Disciplinary Board, the officer-in-charge
refused to explain. We can conclude from this that there has been a disclosure of
evidence or information in this instance. This is demonstrated in the previously decided
case of Phang Moh Shin v Comm, Of Police [1967] 2 MLJ186, where the inquiry officers
had key files for the hearing but never revealed them to Phang Moh Shm. The court
decided that there had been a violation of Natural Justice since he was not given an
opportunity to explain the contents of the papers, and the dismissal judgement was
overturned. He was denied the ability to cross-examine witnesses when the hearing
panel declined his request to summon them to testify. Moh Shin v. Comm. Police [1967]
MLJ 186, Phang Moh Shin was denied the chance to cross-examine all prosecution
witnesses, which amounted to a violation of his right to Natural Justice. Then, in this
circumstance, we may see the feature of personal bias. Mr. Samad presided over the
proceedings. We may foresee that there will be personal prejudice in this case due to
Mr. Samad's involvement, which will push him to prioritise himself above the issue. A
previously decided case is AK Krainak v Union of India AIR 1470 sc 150, in which a
selection board was formed to appoint state service workers for the Indian Forest
Service. The Acting Chief Conservator of Forests was one of the candidates, and he
also served on the selection committee. The court held that appointing a Commissioner
to evaluate the scheme's merits may imply that justice was not being served, hence the
verdict was overturned. Kamaruddin, however, has the option of filing a certiorari appeal
to reverse the judgement. In Badat Drani V Tan Kheat [1953] MLJ 67, for example, the
High Court refused to grant certiorari to annul a Rent Board ruling since the petitioner
may appeal the Board's decision to the High Court.
In conclusion, Kamaruddin can seek review to overturn the panel court's ruling
since it violates his Natural Justice.
Question 2:
The issue here is whether Dr. Mendoza may challenge the selection that was
made with the help of the Higher Education Minister.
For the difficulty of the ouster clause. The abolition clause is a presumption that
Parliament does presently not plan to deny humans entry to the advanced courts unless
there are clear indications to the contrary. As a result, a public body or administrator
must now verify that the subsidiary legislation is not violated in order for the courts to
conduct any judicial review. For example, the subsidiary legislation must no longer
include any clause that precludes any involvement by the courts, unless the Parent Act
under which the subsidiary law is based specifically allows the exclusion of the courts.
In the case of Chester v Bateson, a statute was broken by utilising a local government
inside the UK attempting to evict tenants of certain houses if it was proven they had
been hired in work associated with battle fare items. The tenants were prevented from
bringing the issue to the courts of regulation because they needed the Minister's
permission first. The petitioner filed the action in court to challenge the removal of the
courthouse docket provision from the statute. The courtroom ruled that such a
"excessive incapacity may be inflicted most effectively by using direct enactment of the
legislature itself" and that "such a grave invasion of the proper of all subjects is now no
longer expected to be executed with the aid of using the legislature to be executed with
the aid of using a branch order." In accordance with the preceding rule, the Higher
Education Minister is responsible for enforcing laws three and five of the Parent Act. In
each public institution, the law is more closely connected with the software of the
professor function. One of the policies enacted with the help of the Higher Education
Minister is legislation three, which states that no enchantment is permitted, implying that
every law enacted must be venture able and that no law may be enacted that cannot be
ventured. In this case, the better training minister sets a subsidiary rule that cannot be
ventured, implying that the legislation may be ventured. Subsidiary regulation is no
longer widely studied since this law is thought to be risky.
Next is procedural ultra vires. Noncompliance with clear required methods may
be grounds for procedural extremely vires. As a result, subsidiary legislation enacted
without complying with the mode mounted with the assistance of the decide act may
render the subsidiary law enacted ultra vires if the manner broken is mandatory.
In accordance with the preceding guideline, each law that has been drafted must
have approval from each of the professors. According to the query, the Higher
Education Minister drafted the law without consulting with professors, implying that the
Higher Education Minister did not conduct a thorough examination. The statute that was
not examined in the required manner shall be declared void since the requirement was
not met. Then the law is null and invalid.
In conclusion, Dr. Mendoza might project the choice of Higher Education
Minister underneath the ouster clause, unreasonableness, and procedural ultra vires.