ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FOR PUBLIC

AUTHORITIES
LAW507
Group: AM2283A1
Name: 1. Chevy shawn 2017273984
2.
Submitted to: Haji Ahmad bin Haji Suman
Past year March 15, Q1
 ISSUE AND PROBLEMS
Issue- The issue is about the application of
natural justice in Disciplinary cases
Problems
1) Whether Aniya is given the enough time to prepare his
defence.
2) Whether Aniya can be represent by lawyer or any
representative for his defence.
3) Whether the charge given to Aniya is adequate and
complete.
4) Whether rule panel of disciplinary board are personal
bias towards Aniya.
 Problem 1
• In answering for the first problem, it can be
gathered from the fact that The Staff Disciplinary
Board of Suka Naya did not give Aniya time for
prepare a proper defence for himself. The notice
that given to Aniya was just before his hearing was
scheduled to be held. In following of the rule of
natural justice, the action taken will be void and
considered unenforceable if they do not give enough
time to the plaintiff. The time given by the
administration to the individual must be enough
depends on the case; it can be said the more
serious the case, the more time will be given.
 cases
• The cases to support this argument are Phang Moh Sin
v Commissioner of Police (1967) 2MLJ 186.In this cases,
the plaintiff just got told of her charge just before the
hearing. When the plaintiff ask for the postpone to make
him prepared for defence, it was refused. So that cases
was considered invalid because the plaintiffs not given
even enough time to prepare.
• For other cases is Re Liverpool Taxi Owners’ Association
(1972) 2 All ER 589.In this case, the Association just
received a letter on the last day before they could
appeal. So this case was considered invalid because the
Association was not given opportunity to defence
themselves.
 Problem 2
• In answering the second problem, whether there is
breach of the right to rebut or not. The adjudicator should
give the party concerned an opportunity to rebut the
material against him/her. What this means is that the
administrator must allow the accused to be represented
by a lawyer if that can help him/her to defend his/her
case properly. To apply the law into the facts of the
question, Aniya wish to be represented by his lawyer,
should have been permitted because that could him to
defend him appropriately. But his requests were rejected.
Aniya's lawyer could have represented Aniya well
because he/she would have legal knowledge on the
matters regarding Aniya's case such as procedures or
cross-examining the witness.
 cases
• The cases to support the above argument are Nik Mohd
Salleh Nik Mat v Timb. Ketua Polis Pahang & Anor. In
this case, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff was
given sufficient opportunity to be represented by an
officer of the Police Force in his trial but he did not take
such an opportunity which led no violation of the RNJ.
• Other case is Britannia Brands (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v
Ketua Pengarah Buruh Malaysia. In this case, the court
quashed the defendant's decision in refusing to grant
legal representation to the applicant. The applicant had
requested for an adjournment of the hearing so that he
could be represented by a counsel but it was refused by
the defendant.
 Problem 3
• For the third problem that is whether Aniya was given a
complete and adequate charge, in this case Staff
Disciplinary Board give charge to Aniya that he leaked
information of a raid by the authority on entertainment
premises in Suka Joget but the charge was given that
not complete and adequate because during the
proceeding, the Board had taken into account Aniya's
past record of coming late to the office but this was not
made known to him. If there is more than one charge,
the accused must be informed of all the charges made
against her. If not, whatever decision made may be
invalid because the accused is tried without proper
defence. So, Aniya is not aware of other charges made
against her and is unable to prepare for defence.
 cases
• The cases to support the above argument are
Maradana Mosque Trustee v Mahmud (1967) 1 AC
13.This case about manager of a school and they were
called upon by the Minister concerned to explain why the
salaries of the teachers in the school were not paid on
time. When they went to explain, the government took
over the school based on another reason which was
informed to the managers. The managers brought the
cases to the court on the ground that they were not told
about the second charge before the hearing took place.
So this case was invalid because the managers were not
given adequate charge.
•
• Second case to support the above argument are R v
Paddington & St Marylebone Rent Tribunal (1949) 1
KB 666.This cases about rent tribunal and the
landlord. The rent tribunal reduced the rent on the
ground that the ceilings of the flats were too low and
not up the modern standard. The revoked the
decision of the rent tribunal because the landlord
was not told of the ceilings issue before the hearing
and matter did not arise at any stage of the
proceedings making the landlord unable to answer
to any questions relating to that matter.
 Problem 4
• In answering the fourth issues, whether the panel of staff
disciplinary board (Kasoomat) had personal bias on Aniya or not.
Personal bias is when the adjudicator has a relationship with the
person being tried either as a relative, friend, business partner
etc. The relationship can be a positive one example friend and
relatives or negative one example is enemies and rivals. To
determine whether there is personal bias or not, the test to apply
is whether there is a likelihood of bias and this ascertained with
reference to the right minded person.
• In the cases of Aniya, Aniya noticed that Kasoomat, his ex-
finance was one of the panels in the hearing. The relationship
between Aniya and Kasoomat can be negative relationship
because it can brought against Aniya in the hearing. The cases
can be seen personal bias if Kasoomat is likelihood bias to Aniya.
 cases
• To support the above argument is Metropolitan
Properties Co v Lannon [1968] 3 All ER 304.
Tenants of a flat applied for a reduction of rent
and application was considered by a Civil
Commitee whose chairman was the son of one
of the tenants. When the rent was reduced, the
decision was challenged as having personal
bias. The court held that , there are was a real
likelihood of bias in the decision maker. Even if
he impartial but if a right minded person thinks
that there was a real likehood of bias on his par..
• Another cases is Dato’ Kanalingan Vellupilai v Majlis Peguam
& Anor [2004] 5 CLJ 505. Two compliant were lodged the
plaintiff by the Bar Council and he was going to be tried in a
tribunal. The plaintiff wished to have a copy of the
attendencee sheet of members who attended the Disciplinary
Board meeting that decided to establish the Inquiry Tribunal
and he also requested to see minutes of said meeting but
both document were refused to him. The plaintiff was brought
the cases to the High Court on the basis that the composition
of the Tribunal might lead to a bleased desicion because
some of the people who decided in the Disciplinary Board
meeting were members of the Bar Council.
• It was held that the Inquiry Tribunal’s composition was
not legal because the Bar Council as the complinant sat s one
of the members in the Disciplinary Board meeting.
 Conclusion
• In a nutshell, Aniya was not given the enough time to
prepare for a good defence because the notice arrived in
shortly before his hearing and Aniyas’ right to be
represented by lawyer or any representative had been
denied. Hence, Aniya had been question about another
charge in his hearing that was not listed in the notice,
due to that he cannot prepare a defence, such
accusation would made any decision taken to be invalid.
Morever, one of the panels of Staff Disciplinary Board
(Kassomat) had a negative relationship with Aniya lead
to personal bias in decision making. Thus, Aniya had
been advised to bring his cases to high court for judicial
review.