NATURAL

JUSTICE
7 MARCH 2023

HABIBAH OMAR
Senior Lecturer
FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
Email: habib597@uitm,edu.my

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 1
 AN OVERVIEW
Administrators of a State or public authorities
must act; make decisions or create rules based
on the concept of Rule of Law where:
• Their acts/ decisions and rules made must
be within the sanction of the law and
controlled by law
• Exercise of discretionary powers must not
be inconsistent with the Rule of Law
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw
Actions/decisions of the State or public
authorities can be subject of Judicial Review
by the court under Administrative Law.
•Section 25(2), Courts of Judicature Act
1964, Paragraph I of the Schedule :
Power to issue to any person or authority directions,
orders or writs, including writs of the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto and certiorari, or any others, for
the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part II of
the Constitution, or any of them, or for any
purpose.
2
 SUBSTANTIVE/ SIMPLE UV
(Illegality – GCHQ case)
AUDI ALTERAM
PARTEM
EXTENDED UV FAILURE TO OBSERVE
(Wednesbury unreasonableness)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NATURAL JUSTICE
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN

(Irrationality – GCHQ case)

COMMON LAW REVIEW
(The doctrine of ultra vires) (non- NEMO JUDEX IN
right based violation) PROCEDURAL UV CAUSA SUA
(Procedural impropriety – Failure to act within procedural
GCHQ case) fairness

PROPORTIONALITY
Failure to observe procedural rules
(GCHQ cse) laid down in legislative instrument
(mandatory procedure)

CONSTITUTIONAL Allegation of violation

PROCEDURAL
REVIEW (right based of the Constitution/ FAIRNESS
violation)
Fundamental liberties

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 3
◦ Natural justice is the Creation of the Common Law (Courts) to ensure that the
administrators or public authorities act with fairness.
◦ Public authorities are expected to act fairly and in good faith
◦ A procedural safeguard against improper or wrongful exercise of power by public
authorities.
◦ Natural Justice is a FLEXIBLE and INFORMAL concept – NOT RIGID and
NOT STRICT in administrative application – WHY?
• Mak Sik Kwong v MOHA [1975]2MLJ175 – issues related to administration are
very wide and broad, hence difficult to set a rigid scheme
• To prevent administrative inefficiency and waste of resources
• Cannot be equated with procedures in the court of law
NATURAL
• ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY vs RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
◦ Regarded as embedded within the Federal Constitution, hence requires no express
JUSTICE
stipulation in the Federal Constitution or Acts of Parliament.
◦ Part of good administration practice to encourage just and right decision of public
authorities – GOOD GOVERNANCE
◦ To inject accountability of public authorities in the exercise of discretionary powers in
rule-making and decision-making.
◦ Common law rules of Natural Justice has two main component:
• Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard/ duty to act fairly)
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 4
• Nemo Judex In Causa Sua (rules against bias)
 AUDI ALTERAM
PARTEM
(RIGHT TO BE HEARD)

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 5
◦ HOL in Ridge v Baldwin [1963] 2ll ER 66 – The Magna Carta of
natural justice (CK Allen, Law and Orders, 242, 1965).
◦ Datuk Hj Mohammad Tufail bin Mahmud & Ors v Dato
Ting Check Sii [2009] 4 MLJ 165 – Right to be heard is an
integral part of natural justice in Malaysia (FC).
AUDI
◦ For example: Power of dismissal, revocation of licence or permit
could not be exercised without giving the person an opportunity ALTERAM
to be heard and defend his case.
◦ AAP is a fair hearing process which may not necessarily brings PARTEM (AAP)
about a fair outcome (end).
◦ AAP is a flexible concept to be decided on merit based on each
case.

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw
6
 Requirement of
prior Notice

Reasons
for
Rules on
decisions AAP REQUIRES Hearing
OBSERVATION
OF THE
FOLLOWING
PROCEDURES

Right to legal Rules relating

representation to evidence

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 7
 RULES RELATING TO
NOTICE
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 8
 NOTICE
(to allow the person to adequately prepare his case)

ADEQUATE IN TIME ADEQUATE IN TERM

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 9
◦ Length of time given to a person prior to the hearing of his
case.
◦ The duration of the notice must be sufficient for the person to
file his objection/ prepare his defence.
◦ Khoo Cheng & Ors (as the administrators of the Estate of
Gan Hong Kok, the deceased) Gan Hong Yock [2005] 3 NOTICE
MLJ614 – the notice for an order of sale of the deceased estate
was not given to the 4-6th appellants. On appeal, the COA held
that the respondents' failure to serve OS 852 for an order of distribution
and the administrators' failure to serve their application for order of sale
and notice of hearing fixed on 16 June 1998 on the fourth to sixth
appellants constituted a clear violation of the rules of natural justice. ADEQUATE IN
◦ Phang Moh Shin v Commissioner of Police [1967]2MLJ186 TIME
Q: What is the duration of a notice for it to be an adequate notice?

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 10
◦ Refer to the details of the case against the part - the allegation/charge must be clearly
particularised to enable the person to answer the allegation/charge.
◦ There is no standard form of notice that detailed out the allegation.
◦ Factors to take note:
v Notice must be stated in clear, specific and unambiguous term
Perkayuan OKS No 2 Sdn Bhd v Kelantan State Economic Development Corp
[1995]1 MLJ401; [1996] 2 CLJ 270
• The Federal Court held that the notice was inadequate as the particulars set out were
unspecific, ambiguous and vague.
• Vague notice is not notice in law.
NOTICE
v All allegations have to be communicated prior to the hearing – if actions/decisions
are taken/made on grounds that are not communicated, such notice is invalid
Othman Bin Ali v Telekom Malaysia Bhd [2004] 4 MLJ 18. The High Court
ruled that : ADEQUATE
• There were two reasons for the appellant’s dismissal but the appellant was not notified of the
second reasons of his dismissal.. The rules of natural justice and fair play
demanded that the material facts supporting the second reason must be
included in the charge against the appellant and that he has been given
IN TERM
reasonable opportunity of giving his explanation for it.
• If the appellant was dismissed for something he was not 'charged’ or in which he was not
given the chance to give explanation – a violation of the rules of natural justice which caused
injustice and prejudice to the appellant.
Other cases : Abdul Rahman bin Isa v Public Service Commission, Msia
[1991]2MLJ240; Phang Moh Shin’s case
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 11
 Notice must be clear,
specific and
unambiguous

ADEQUATE IN TERM
if actions/decisions
All allegations have to taken/made on the
be communicated grounds that are not
prior to the hearing communicated, such
notice is invalid

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 12
◦ There MAY NOT BE A standard form of notice
◦ absence of formal notice/ existence of irregularity or technical
defects on notice MAY NOT amount to breach of Natural Justice MUST THERE
if the defects is CURABLE
BE A
◦ The question is - has the person been prejudiced by it? STANDARD
◦ Lim Ko & Anor v Board Of Architects [1966] 2 MLJ 80
• The facts reflect that the first appellant was sufficiently informed of the
FORM OF
nature of the allegation against him through prior communications
with the Board - there is no merit in this objection in his case when he
NOTICE?
claimed that he was not given detailed notification of the charge against
him.

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw
13
 RULES ON HEARING
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 14
◦ Refers to fair hearing – a person must be given a fair opportunity to
make representation (defend himself)
◦ There is no fixed hearing procedure to be followed
◦ There can be hearing through interview, consultation, discussion, written
representation or oral representation - Ketua Pengarah Kastam
v Ho Kwan Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 152 – The Federal Court expressed that:
… the hearing may take many forms and strict insistence upon an inexorable
right to the traditional courtroom procedure can lead to a virtual administrative
breakdown. That is because a formal hearing is too slow, too technical and too
costly.
RULES ON
◦ The Court has to decide if fair hearing has been accorded based on each
case.
HEARING
◦ Some cases require less formal procedure of representation and some
require formal procedure of representation.
◦ The right to be heard is implicit in our system notwithstanding the
absence of any statutory/constitutional provision for an inquiry or a fair
hearing - Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 152,
FC
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 15
 The complexity of the case The technicality involved

TYPES OF
REPRESENTATION
DEPENDS ON:

Whether difficult question of law

Issue of credibility involved
and fact are raised

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 16
 RULES ON HEARING
WRITTEN REPRESENTATION ORAL REPRESENTATION
• Refer to representation or explanation made by the parties
through letters or document.
• Regarded as sufficient compliance with natural justice.
• Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 152 -
The FC court found that the respondent was given a chance of
a fair hearing. Representation in writing was regarded as
sufficient in addition to the fact that a personal hearing was not
requested.
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw
• The parties may argue their case orally before the adjudicator.
• There will be an additional opportunity to ensure that all
relevant facts (favourable or unfavourable) be clarified as much
as possible.
• Good for the parties BUT expensive and time consuming for
the Administration - not administratively efficacious to be
employed.
• Oral hearing is not to be given as of right.
• fairness is not necessarily obtained through oral hearing
/representation
17
 ORAL HEARING OR WRITTEN
REPRESENTATION?

◦ 2 ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED:
• When should oral/written representation be given? Before or after decision?
§ In Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 152, the written representation was made by the respondent
after the decision to cancel the agency was made and it was held to be valid.
§ Issue – will representation after decision made serves the purpose?

• When does oral representation becomes necessary?

§ When a witness in involved - Malayawata Steel Bhd v Union of Malayawata Steel Workers [1978] 1 MLJ 87.
§ Complex and difficult questions raised.
§ Serious charge affecting the party; his credibility; reputation or livelihood – Pett v Greyhound Racing Association Ltd
[1968]2 All ER 545.
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 18
 RULES RELATING TO
EVIDENCE
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 19
 All incriminating evidence used in
the proceedings must be made
available to the person alleged

Mainly divided
into:
Producing material witness or
documents (evidence)

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 20
q All incriminating evidence used in the proceedings must be
made available to the person alleged - to provide opportunity to
comment/ rebut/ criticise the evidence
§ anything that restricts, or appears to restrict, the defendant's ability to present
his case may be a breach of procedural fairness - for example, a defendant is
generally entitled to notice of evidence that might assist his case. It is a breach
of natural justice for the prosecution to conceal such evidence: R v
Leyland Justices, ex p Hawthorn [1979]QB283. RULES
§ Abdul Rahim Bin Abdullah v Polis Di-raja Malaysia [1998] MLJU 117 –
disclosure of material document is part of right to defend oneself RELATING
§ B Surrinder Singh Kanda v Government of Federation of Malaya [1962]
MLJ 169 – The Report of the Board of Inquiry contained a severe
TO
condemnation of the Appellant, disclosed to the adjudicating officer but was
not given to the Appellant. EVIDENCE
• It was held - within the right to be heard is a right for the accused man to
know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence
has been given and what statements have been made against him and he
must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. The judge
must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind
the back of the other.
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 21
 ◦ In Rohana Bte Ariffin & Anor v Universiti Sains Malaysia [1989] 1 MLJ 487, the
applicants had, through their solicitors (before the commencement of the
proceedings before the disciplinary authority), requested for all relevant
information and documents in the possession of the disciplinary authority on the
ground that without such material it would be difficult to put up an adequate
defence. They were told that only copies of documents as the board deemed fit
would be supplied at the hearing. Some documents deemed confidential would not
be supplied by the board. This was held to be in breach of the rules

RULES
of natural justice.
◦ Producing material witness or documents (evidence)
◦ In oral hearing, the party has the opportunity to produce the evidence to rebut their
case or to support the allegation RELATING
◦ In Malayawata Steel Bhd v Union of Malayawata Steel Workers [1978] 1 MLJ 87
– the applicant wished to call witnesses to adduce evidence relating to the matter in
dispute at the hearing before the Industrial Court. The application was denied. The
TO
parties were not only denied calling of witness but also denied the opportunity of
cross-examining the witnesses. EVIDENCE
◦ It was held that there had been a denial of natural justice in that the applicant was not
allowed to call witnesses and was therefore not given a reasonable opportunity of presenting
its case.

◦ Evidence can be tendered as long as it is relevant to the case.

◦ In Administrative Proceedings, the parties and adjudicatory bodies are not bound to
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 22
apply the strict rule of evidence under the Evidence Act 1950
 RIGHT TO COUNSEL
OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATION
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 23
◦ In administrative proceedings, legal representation is not encouraged
due to reasons of cost and to protect the poor against the rich.
◦ However, if a party is given a right to oral hearing, he will generally be
allowed legal representation.
◦ In Doresamy v Public Services Commission [1971] 2 MLJ 127, - where
a person has a statutory right of appeal and the regulations are silent on
the right to the assistance of counsel, the aggrieved person cannot be
deprived of such right of assistance.
◦ In Sithambaran v Attorney General [1972] 2 MLJ 175, Regulation 7
RIGHT TO
of the Police Regulations, 1959 is silent on the question whether
subordinate officers can be represented by anyone at an inquiry. Here,
COUNSEL OR
the court affirmed Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v. The Football
Association Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 215 which states:
LEGAL
• "The case thus raises this important point: is a party who is charged before a REPRESENTATION
domestic tribunal, entitled as of right to be legally represented? Much depends on
what the rules say about it. When the rules say nothing, then the party has no
absolute right to be legally represented. It is a matter for the discretion of the
tribunal. It is master of its own procedure; and, if it, in the proper exercise of
its discretion, declines to allow legal representation, the courts will not interfere.“
• Hence, it is the inquiry office that has a discretion whether to allow
legal representation or not.
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 24
 REASONS FOR
DECISIONS
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 25
Adjudicatory authority generally need not give reasons to
support his decision
◦ Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya (Balik Pulau), P
ulau Pinang v Kam Gin Paik & Ors [1983] 2 MLJ 390 - no
necessity for the Collector to give reasons for his award. Section
14(2) expressly states that an award prepared in Form G shall be
final and conclusive evidence of area and value of the land in
the opinion of the Collector.
REASONS FOR
◦ Edgar Joseph J in Rohana’s case cautioned against requiring DECISION
reasons for decision when the learned judge stated that: if the
requirement for reasons is essential for every quasi judicial order, then it
would place administrative bodies in a very difficult position.
◦ Hence, in Rohana, it was held that whether reasons had to be
furnished dependent on the circumstances of the case.

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 26
Providing reasons for decision will safeguard against arbitrary and
unfair decision; promote transparency and contribute to good
administration – GOOD GOVERNANCE

◦ In Rohana Bte Ariffin & Anor v Universiti Sains Malaysia [1989] 1

MLJ 487, the learned Judge held that the law has developed to a stage
where there is a general duty to provide reasons even when the
relevant authority acts in a quasi-judicial matter. The learned judge
REASONS FOR
acknowledged that in certain cases, reasons for decision should be
given, especially when there is a right of appeal. Litigants and the
DECISIONS
appellate tribunal are entitled to know the reasons for the finding.
◦ Reasoned decision was accepted as an additional constituent of the
concept of fairness in Rohana.

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 27
Reasons for decision are encouraged when:
Exist The
legitimate decision The
The party decision
has a right expectation affects
that reasons fundamental appears
of appeal irrational on
should be rights or
given livelihood its face

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 28
In later cases, duty to give reasons for decision was regarded as part of
procedural fairness to be read in the context of fundamental liberties
in the Federal Constitution, Articles 5(1) and 8(1)

◦ Hong Leong Equipment Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Chuan And Another
Appeal [1996] 1 MLJ 481
◦ Kelab Lumba Kuda Perak v Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & O
rs [2005] 5 MLJ 193

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 29
 NEMO JUDEX IN
CAUSA SUA
(RULES AGAINST BIAS)

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 30
◦ This is the doctrine of independence and impartiality - a decision-
maker must approach a matter with an open mind – objectively, fairly,
impartially; free of prejudgment and prejudice.
◦ Originally applied only to Courts but has been adopted as universal
application of vast range of decision makers.
◦ An adjudicator has to be impartial and neutral to ensure public
confidence in the public administration of justice.
◦ An adjudicator will be disqualified from determining any case in which
THE BASIC
he may be, or may fairly be suspected to be biased.
◦ ‘bias’ may be generally defined as partiality or preference which is not
PRINCIPLES
founded on reason and is actuated by self-interest whether pecuniary or
personal. OF NEMO
◦ Indian Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation v Satyanarayan Transporters AIR 1965 SC 1303, p 1306 JUDEX IN
states that ‘…no one can act in a judicial capacity if his previous conduct gives
ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind. The broad principle which
is universally accepted is that a person trying a cause even in quasi-judicial
CAUSA SUA
proceedings, must be able to act above suspicion of unfairness.’

◦ The test : REAL DANGER OF BIAS

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 31
 RULE AGAINST BIAS
2 fundamental
propositions:

An adjudicator Justice must not

should not be a be done but must
judge in his own be seen to be
cause done

He must not
He must not be a TEST OF REAL
have interest in
party to the the matter in DANGER OF
dispute dispute BIAS

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 32
He who investigate/ file a complaint, must not decide.

◦ Collins v Lane, Cornish and Worcester Norton Sports Club Ltd [2003] LLR 19.
• Here, the appellant, who was a member of Worcester Norton Shooting Club,
was removed from the membership of the club by the committee. He brought a
motion against the club, the motion was dismissed by the recorder who heard the
case.
AN
• On appeal to the Court of Appeal, his claimed was allowed. One of the grounds
in allowing the appeal was that the chief range officer who was responsible for
putting the complaints before the committee on behalf of the range officers
ADJUDICATOR
took part in the decision. In the circumstances the Court of Appeal held that
the rule against bias was undermined. MUST NOT BE
◦ Darshan Singh v Farid Kamal Hussain (Sued on behalf and for the Board Of
Members and Kelab Sukan Pulau Pinang) [2005] 3 MLJ 502; 6 AMR 608; [2004]
4 CLJ 410
A JUDGE IN
• LY Hong gave evidence before the Disciplinary Committee and he also sat on
the Main Committee to hear the appeal from the Disciplinary Committee
HIS OWN
• LY Hong acted both as a witness and as a judge
• This is contrary to the rule against bias. There exist a real likelihood of bias on CAUSE
the part of tribunal hearing the appeal. LY Hong who had personal knowledge
of the incident may in all likelihood have a strong influence on the other
members of the Main Committee in the course of their deliberation. For that
reason as a general rule a witness after having given evidence should not be
allowed to sit on the enquiry or the appellate body.
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 33
◦ In Rohana’s case, Mr Ogle (the Registrar)
◦ the complainant in this case
◦ had shown active partisanship in the proceedings before the
disciplinary authority
◦ present throughout the deliberations of the disciplinary authority
and no reasons were given as to the necessity for his presence
there.
PRESENCE AT
◦ Even though Mr Ogle did not discuss the case with members of
the disciplinary authority nor did he take part in their deliberations
THE
and decision-making, his presence reflected air of authority that
was against rules of biasness
PROCEEDINGS
◦ It was held that the presence of Mr Ogle breached the rule against
bias as it is important that the complainant or prosecutor should
not participate in a decision or in an appeal from a decision, and
should not even appear to participate.

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 34
 Decision maker has real bias against
ACTUAL the party – actual partisanship or
hostility
BIAS Decision maker has prejudged the
case against the party

Pecuniary interest however small

PECUNIARY will disqualify a person from being
a judge

TYPES OF BIAS E.g. shareholding

BIASNESS Decision maker is against or in

PERSONAL favour of one party in the dispute

BIAS May arise out of relationship,

friendship or business dealing

An official who participated in

POLICY formulating the policy who are
called to decide on a controversy
BIAS involving the policy
Whether the official can be
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw disqualified on the ground of
policy bias? 35
 RECUSE CASE
◦ In an application to disqualify a judge (recuse case), the judge
cannot recuse simply on the basis that there exist an application to
disqualify him.
◦ Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Bhd v Yong Liuk Thin & Ors [1995]
2 MLJ 213
• the judge made a remark during an application and
subsequently, the respondent made an application to disqualify
the judge from hearing the trial in action. The judge decided to
recuse even though he did not find any reasonable reason to
recuse. The judge’s decision to recuse was because he feared
that allegations might later be made against him.
• The Court of Appeal subsequently ruled that the act to recuse
was wrong and directed the learned judge to hear the trial of
the action.
◦ See also : Bumicrystal Technology (M) Sdn Bhd v Rowstead
Systems Sdn Bhd [2004] 6 MLJ 169

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 36
 RULE AGAINST BIAS (RECUSE CASE)
(2 categories of disqualification)

AUTOMATIC NON-AUTOMATIC
DISQUALIFICATION DISQUALIFICATION

The Judge must Based on the The applicant must

recuse even if no
The Judge has application is made principle that no prove the
pecuniary or one may be a judge possibility
proprietary interest for him to The Judge is not The applicant must
disqualify himself in his or her own obliged to recuse prove bias of bias must be
in the subject – legal duty for the cause or in a case, real and apparent
matter of dispute judge to disqualify which he/she has on the balance of
himself an interest.©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw probability 37
◦ The Court of Appeal in Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Bhd v Yong Liuk Thin &
Ors [1995]2 MLJ213
• To disqualify a judge, there must be circumstances or facts which have been shown to exist
which would lead a reasonable and fair-minded onlooker or which would have given
reasonable ground for him to suspect that the case would not be decided according to the
evidence – use ‘the real danger of bias’ test from the perspective of a
reasonable fair-minded onlooker (RM)
HOWEVER :
◦ Lord Goff in R v Gough [1993] AC 646 - I prefer to state the test in terms of real
THE TEST
danger rather than real likelihood, to ensure that the court is thinking in terms of
possibility rather than probability of bias.
◦ Followed by the Federal Court in Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat
Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3
MLJ 1, where it was concluded that : ‘REAL
• It is also important to note that the question of bias has to be answered by considering all
the facts not merely by reference to the view of the hypothetical reasonable man (R v Gough
[[1993] AC 646], per Lord Goff at p 670D-E). Having given careful consideration to
the matter, we prefer the test of apparent bias given in Gough ('the real danger
DANGER OF
of bias' test) as this will avoid setting aside judgments upon quite insubstantial grounds
and the flimsient pretext of bias. BIAS’
◦ The Federal Court in Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis
Negara [2002]1 MLJ321 also applied the 'real danger of bias test’.
◦ Bumicrystal Technology (M) Sdn Bhd v Rowstead Systems Sdn Bhd [2004] 6
MLJ 169 - the test to be applied in a recuse application is the 'real danger of bias'
test where the possibility of bias must be real and apparent.

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 38
 Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and another & Other
Appeals [2000] QB 451, [2000] 2 WLR 870, [2000] 1 All ER 65 – what
may or may not give rise to a real danger of bias will depend on the facts,
which may include the nature of the issue to be decided
NO POSSIBILITY OF REAL
DANGER OF BIAS
(CANNOT BE BASED ON)
religion, ethnic or national origin, gender, age, class, means or sexual orientation; judge’s
or his family’s social or educational or service or employment background or history; or
previous judicial decisions; or extra-curricular utterances (whether in textbooks, lectures,
speeches, articles, interviews, reports or responses to consultation papers); or previous
receipt of instructions to act for or against any party, solicitor or advocate engaged in a
case before him; or membership of the same Inn, circuit, local Law Society or chambers
(see KFTCIC v Icori Estero SpA (Court of Appeal of Paris, 28 June 1991, International
Arbitration Report Vol 6 8/91)).
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw
POSSIBILITY OF REAL
DANGER OF BIAS
There were personal friendship or animosity between the judge and any person involved in the case; or if the judge
were closely acquainted with any person involved in the case, particularly if the credibility of that individual could
be significant in the decision of the case or to be decided by the judge, he had in a previous case rejected the
evidence of that person in such outspoken terms as to throw doubt on his ability to approach such person's
evidence with an open mind on any later occasion; or the judge had expressed views, particularly in the course of
the hearing, in such extreme and unbalanced terms as to throw doubt on his ability to try the issue with an
objective judicial mind (see Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568); or if, for any other reason, there were real
ground for doubting the ability of the judge to ignore extraneous considerations, prejudices and predilections and
bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues before him. The mere fact that a judge, earlier in the same case
or in a previous case, had commented adversely on a party or witness, or found the evidence of a party or witness
be unreliable, would not without more found a sustainable objection.
39
CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE
TO THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
FAILURE TO
OBSERVE
NATURAL JUSTICE

DECISION
NULL
AND
VOID

©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 40
 THANK YOU
©Habibahomar@UiTMlaw 41