Week 5 Tutorial Exercise.

subsidiary legislation problem solving question.

Under the Grab Car Act 2018 (fictitious), the Minister of Transportation is empowered to
make regulations regarding the registration of Grab Cars. The regulations need to be tabled
in parliament before the enforcement. The Minister made the following regulations:
Regulation 2: The owner of each successfully registered Grab Cars must pay RM2000
annually for transportation tax. Regulation 4: The decision of the Minister is final and cannot
be challenged in any courts of law. Regulation 6: All Grab Cars must be imported, and
national cars are not allowed to be used as Grab cars. The above regulations were enforced
on May 2018, but we’re not tabled in Parliament as required by the said Act. Danny wants to
register his national car as a Grab Car to gain some additional income. He is not satisfied
with the regulations made by the Minister. Advise Danny.

Answer.
Regulation 2: The owner of each successfully registered Grab Cars must pay RM2000
annually for transportation tax.

ISSUE.
The issue in this case is whether Danny can challenge regulation that have made by the
Minister of Transportation under financial levy?

LAW.
Any use of power beyond the restrictions or boundaries given by law is considered ultra
vires, and the action or decision taken as a result is null and invalid.

Subsidiary legislation is defined as "any proclamation, rule, regulation, order, notification,

bye-law, or other document enacted under any Act, Enactment, Ordinance, or other
authorized authority and having legislative force," according to Section 3 of the interpreting
Acts of 1948 and 1967. The related subsidiary legislation ultra vires parent act that suitable
to this regulation is financial levy.

The example case that can be relatable is case of Attorney-General v Wilts United
Dairies (Cont.)
APPLICATION.
The case states that the owner of each registered Grab Car has to pay RM2000 annually as
it is a transportation tax. This amount is very large and impossible for some parties to pay.
Plus, Danny only wants to add a little bit of income and this will be difficult for him due to his
high taxes. This could refer to a Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies (Cont.) case.
This proves that in both cases, the authorities need to get the permission of parliament to
make a charge for the financial levy.

CONCLUSION.

To conclude, Danny can challenge regulation of the Ministry of Transportation for financial
charge under extended ultra vires since they forced them to pay an RM2,000 payment tax
for those who registered with Grab Cars.
Regulation 4: The decision of the Minister is final and cannot be challenged in any
courts of law.

ISSUE.
The issue in this case is whether Danny can challenge Minister of Transportation for
regulations under Extended Ultra Vires exclusion of courts (Ouster Clause)?

LAW.
Any use of power beyond the restrictions or boundaries given by law is considered ultra
vires, and the action or decision taken as a result is null and invalid.
Subsidiary legislation is defined as "any proclamation, rule, regulation, order, notification,
bye-law, or other document enacted under any Act, Enactment, Ordinance, or other
authorized authority and having legislative force," according to Section 3 of the
interpreting Acts of 1948 and 1967. The related subsidiary legislation ultra vires parent
act that suitable to this regulation is extended ultra vires exclusion of courts (Ouster
Clause).
The example case that can be relateable is case of Commission of Customs and
Excise v Cure & Deeley Ltd.

APPLICATION.
It states that anyone who want to register with Grab Cars must follow all laws and
regulations, and the Minister's decision is final and cannot be disputed in any court of
law. On the basis of this case, it may conclude that the rule is an exclusion of courts
(Ouster Clause), because the courts' authority should not be limited by subsidiary law,
and access to them should not be prohibited until expressly stated. As a result, this
situation is similar to the Commission of Customs and Excise v Cure & Deeley Ltd
case.

CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, Danny can challenge the Ministry of Transportation under the expanded
Ultra Vires exclusion of courts (Ouster Clause) since the rule is void under the Ultra
Vires Parent Act.
Regulation 6: All Grab Cars must be imported, and national cars are not allowed to
be used as Grab cars.

ISSUE.
The issue in this case is whether Danny can challenge Minister of Transportation for
regulations on Extended Ultra Vires under unreasonableness?

LAW.
Any use of power beyond the restrictions or boundaries given by law is considered ultra
ires, and the action or decision taken as a result is null and invalid.
Subsidiary legislation is defined as "any proclamation, rule, regulation, order,
notification, bye-law, or other document enacted under any Act, Enactment, Ordinance,
or other authorized authority and having legislative force," according to Section 3 of the
interpreting Acts of 1948 and 1967. The related subsidiary legislation ultra vires parent
act that suitable to this regulation is unreasonableness.
The example case that can similarly is case of Arlidge v Islington Corporation.

APPLICATION.
This is unfair since registered cars must be imported, while national vehicles are not
permitted. This is due to the fact that not all drivers can afford to acquire an imported car
due to its high cost, and this has no bearing on passenger comfort. This may allude to
the case of Arlidge v Islington Corporation, in which it is evident that the minister's
regulations are arbitrary.

CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, the regulation of Minister of transportation is void. Therefore, Danny can
challenge the Minister of Transportation under Extended Ultra Vires which is unreasonableness.