lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

1) MUHAMMAD HAZIQ FIKRI BIN HISHAMUDDIN 2019271186

2) ALYA DIYANAH BT SHAHRONNIZAL 2019420712
3) IZZAH SYAMIMIE BT ROSENI 2019287526
4) ANIS MAISARA BT ASMAWI 2019416718

(OCT 2016)
ISSUE

1. The issue is whether there is any form of personal bias by disciplinary

committee’s.

LAW

Personal bias Personal bias may arise in the adjudicator being against, or in
favour of, one party to the dispute in many varied circumstances. For example,
relationship, friendship, or business dealings with, or hostility or animosity to a
party, may disqualify an official from acting as an adjudicator in the dispute.

The Test of personal bias on the part of the decision-maker is not whether
there was actual prejudice against the petitioner. The courts do not go into all
detailed facts of a case to see whether the petitioner has been actually prejudiced or
not. If actual bias is proved in a case, that is an end of the matter and the adjudicator
concerned must be disqualified. But it is not necessary to prove actual bias in the
adjudicating body.

The Test has been whether there is a ‘real likelihood’ of bias on the facts of a
case and this has to be ascertained with reference to ‘right minded persons’.
 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

The example case is Metropolitan Properties Co v Lannon. A block of flats

belonged to a company. A tenant in a flat applied to fix a fair rent. The matter
reached the rent assessment committee of which Lannon, a solicitor, was chairman.
Lannon lived with his father who was a tenant in a flat owned by an associate
company in the same group as the company now a party before Lannon. Lannon had
assisted his father and other tenants in the fixing of fair rent for their flats.The
decision of the assessment committee was challenged on the ground of Lannon’s
bias. The petitioner company even acknowledge that there was no “actual” bias or
want of good faith on Lannon’s part but contended that there was unconsciously “a
real likelihood” of bias. The court appeal accepted this argument and quashed the
decision of the rent committee on the ground of “real likelihood bias”. Lord Denning,
delivering the judgement of the court, emphasized that it was of fundamental
importance that Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to
be done. He emphasized that in considering whether there was a “real likelihood” of
bias, the court does not look at the mind of the judge. It does not look to see if the
judge did in fact favour one side at the expense of the other. “The court looks at the
impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as
could be, nevertheless, if right- minded persons would think that, in the
circumstances, there was a “real likelihood” of bias on his part, then he should not
sit. And if it does sit, his decision cannot stand’.

APPLICATION

Based on jason’s case, the case can be refer from the case of Metropolitan
Properties Co v Lannon in which state that a rent appraisal committee offered a
lower price for rent to the tenants compared to the original agreements that was
agreed by the landlord and also the residents. In this case, it seems like Lannon
committed personal biased. This is because they said that Lannon had assisted his
father and other tenants in the fixing of fair rent for their flats. Furthermore, the
Court of Appeal accepted this argument and quashed the decision of the rent
committee on the ground of ‘real likehood’ or bias.

Lord Denning, delivering the judgement of the court, emphasized that it was
of fundamental importance that Justice should not only be done, but should
manifestly be seen to be done. He emphasized that in considering whether there
was a “real likelihood” of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the judge. It
does not look to see if the judge did in fact favour one side at the expense of the
other. “The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people.
Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if right- minded persons would
think that, in the circumstances, there was a “real likelihood” of bias on his part,
then he should not sit. And if it does sit, his decision cannot stand.

In reference to the precedent case Metropolitan Properties Co v Lannon, it

can be concluded that Jason case related to personal bias. This is because on the day
of the hearing he noticed that one of the panel attending disciplinary hearing was an
income tax officer whom he head investigated on charges of corruption. After the
end of hearing, Jason was dismissed from his position. The act can be considered as
 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

bias because there is a person who he had been investigated due to the corruption
case.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Jason has the right to sued disciplinary committee’s on the

grounds of personal bias