1. Consists of two aspects
In Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Government of Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 MLJ 1, the Federal Court made the following observations about ‘natural justice’:
“… As is now well-established, there are two aspects to the breach of natural justice principle. The first is the rule against bias and the second, the right to be heard.”[1] (Emphasis mine)
“…The first was the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) or the rule that no one may act as a judge in his own cause. The second is that no person should be condemned unheard or without prior notice of the allegations against him (audi alteram partem). The instant case is only concerned with the audi alteram partem rule.”[2]
2. Included in the right to a fair trial
The Federal Court in Ketheeswaran a/l Kanagaratnam & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2024] 1 MLJ 851 agreed with the submission of the appellants therein that the right to a fair trial includes the rules of natural justice:
“The appellants have cited numerous authorities for the proposition that the right to a fair trial includes the rules of natural justice, and that an integral part of arts 5(1) and 8(1) include procedural fairness. We do not think these principles are in dispute.”[3] (Emphasis mine)
3. Applies to every case where an individual is adversely affected by an administrative action
This legal proposition was put forth by Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as His Majesty then was) in Ketua Pengarah Kastam v. Ho Kwan Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 152:
“In my opinion, the rule of natural justice that no man may be condemned unheard should apply to every case where an individual is adversely affected by an administrative action, no matter whether it is labelled ‘judicial’, ‘quasi-judicial’, or ‘administrative’ or whether or not the enabling statute makes provision for a hearing.”[4] (Emphasis mine)
Raja Azlan Shah FJ’s views above were cited approvingly by the Federal Court in Majlis Peguam Malaysia v Syed Ahmad Imdadz B Said Abad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 527.[5]
4. The breach of it can be grounds for review of a Federal Court decision
In Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Government of Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 MLJ 1, a case which involved an application to review an earlier decision of the Federal Court, it was held that:
“Having the benefit of the case authorities as outlined in the foregoing discussion and the reasoning applied in those cases, we considered it appropriate, both on principle and authority, that breach of natural justice, whether it be on the bias rule or the right to be heard rule, ought to be one of the matters to be included in the limited list for the court of last resort to exercise its jurisdiction to review its previous decision.”[6] (Emphasis mine)
In Dhinesh a/l Tanaphll v Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors [2022] 3 MLJ 356, the Federal Court pointed out that its earlier decision in Rovin Joty a/l Kodeeswaran v Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors and other appeals [2021] 2 MLJ 822 had been quashed on review for breach of natural justice:
“Rovin Joty has however recently been quashed upon review under r 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court, on the grounds of a breach of natural justice, in that the majority judgment there addressed issues that were not in dispute between the parties, resulting in parties being precluded from addressing the court on these fundamental findings.”[7] (Emphasis mine)
5. May, in special cases/circumstances, require reasons to be given for administrative decisions
Gibbs CJ held the following in Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656, a decision of the High Court of Australia:
“It remains to consider whether, notwithstanding that there is no general obligation to give reasons for an administrative decision, the circumstances make this a special case in which natural justice required reasons to be given. The rules of natural justice are designed to ensure fairness in the making of a decision and it is difficult to see how the fairness of an administrative decision can be affected by what is done after the decision has been made. However, assuming that in special circumstances natural justice may require reasons to be given, the present is not such a case.’”
Gibbs CJ’s views above were cited by the Federal Court in Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises & Ors and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 829.[8]
[1] Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Government of Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 MLJ 1 (FC), at para 46
[2] Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Government of Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 MLJ 1 (FC), at para 58
[3] Ketheeswaran a/l Kanagaratnam & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2024] 1 MLJ 851 (FC), at para 102
[4] Ketua Pengarah Kastam v. Ho Kwan Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 152 (FC), at p. 154
[5] Majlis Peguam Malaysia v Syed Ahmad Imdadz B Said Abad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 527 (FC), at para 29
[6] Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Government of Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 MLJ 1 (FC), at para 55
[7] Dhinesh a/l Tanaphll v Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors [2022] 3 MLJ 356 (FC), at para 47
[8] Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises & Ors and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 829 (FC), at para 514
