COURSE NAME AND CODE:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FOR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

LAW 507

TUTORIAL TASK
WEEK 7
DECEMBER 2018

NAME MATRIC NO. GROUP

NUR ASILAH BINTI MOHD YUSOF 2021505479 N4AM2263B
NUR IZZATIE BINTI MOHD SHAIR 2021113879 N4AM2263B
NURUL ANIS ATHIRAH BINTI NOR ASPARI 2021113311 N4AM2263B
NURUL FARHANAH BINTI NOOR ZAIMI 2021132003 N4AM2263B

PREPARED FOR:
MADAM AZLINA BINTI MOHD HUSSAIN
PART B

QUESTION 1

Lili is a doctor in a government clinic. She has been working in that clinic for almost ten
years. Recently, she received a letter from the State Health Department (SHD), alleging that
she had breached the Code of Ethics for a doctor. The Board of Inquiry notified her that a
hearing would be conducted in 3 days’ time. Lili asked for more time to prepare for her case.
In addition, she also requested for more particulars of the charges against her from the SHD.
Both her requests were turned down by the Board of Inquiry.

Lili attended the hearing accompanied by her counsel. However, the Board of Inquiry did not
allow her counsel to be present on the ground that the proceeding was a domestic hearing.
The Board also did not allow her to bring in witnesses as it would cause a delay in the
proceeding.

At the end of the hearing, the Board decided that the allegation made against Lili was
proven. She was suspended from work for six months. Lili now wishes to challenge the
decision made by the Board against her.

Advise Lili. (30 marks)

ANSWER

Issue:
(a) Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry under insufficient
time?
(b) Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry under the
opportunity to rebut which is no legal representative is allowed?
(c) Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry under the failure to
disclose of all information?
(d) Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry under the
unacceptance of evidence and relevant materials including statements made by witnesses?
Issue (a):
Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board of inquiry under
insufficient time?
Law and case:
An essential condition of one of the principles of Natural Justice is sufficient time
under notice in Right to be Heard. Sufficient time means that the accused has the right to
have a sufficient time in order to prepare his defense and answer the case during a hearing.
If the accused is given insufficient time, the decision made by the panel of a hearing may be
invalid as it infringes the principle of natural justice. How we can determine the sufficient time
is, much depends on the circumstances of each case.
In the case of Phang Moh Shin v. Commissioner of Police [1967] 2 MLJ 186
The plaintiff was accused of corruption. He was informed of the charge against him
just before the hearing commenced. The plaintiff requested for postponement to prepare his
defense but was rejected. He was dismissed after the trial and later he brought the case to
the court to challenge his dismissal.
The court held that the dismissal was invalid on the ground of insufficient notice given
to him of the charge made against him.
Application:
By referring to the principles mentioned above, Lily who is a doctor in a government
clinic was received a letter from the State Health Department (SHD) alleging that she had
breached the Code of Ethics for a doctor. The Board of Inquiry notified her that a hearing
would be conducted in 3 days’ time. Lily has been given insufficient time for her to prepare
for her defence since the hearing would be conducted in 3 days’ time, the Board of Inquiry
should give Lily sufficient time for her to prepare for the hearing. Thus, Lily asked for more
time to prepare for her case, but her request was rejected. So, Lily can challenge the
decision made by the Board of Inquiry under insufficient time.
Issue (b):
Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board under the opportunity to
rebut which is no legal representative is allowed?
Law and case:
An essential condition of the principles of Natural Justice is opportunity to rebut the
allegation which is a representation by a counsel or lawyer should be allowed under notice. It
means that an accused must be given a right to be represented by his lawyer or any counsel
to rebut the material against him particularly if it involves a serious matter.
In case of Esso Malaysia Corporation Inc v. Aladdin Mohd Hashim [2000] 3 CLJ 334
The appellant appeal against the decision of the High Court that decided in favour of
the respondent who challenged the refusal of the Industrial Court to give him the opportunity
of being legally represented. The Court of Appeal held that the decision was correct as the
right to be represented was necessary in this case since it could help the respondent to
redeem his reputation.
Application:
As referred to the opportunity to rebut the allegation which is a representation by a
counsel or lawyer. In this case, Lily attended the hearing accompanied by her counsel.
However, the Board of Inquiry did not allow her counsel to be present on the ground that the
proceeding was a domestic hearing. The Board of Inquiry should allow Lily as an accused a
right to be represented by her lawyer to rebut the material against him particularly if it
involves a serious matter. So, Lily can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry
under the opportunity to rebut which is no legal representative is allowed.
Issue (c):
Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry under the
failure to disclose of all information?
Law and case:
All information, evidence, materials to be used in a hearing by the panel must be
disclosed to the accused. There must not be any element or surprises in the hearing, which
means that the panel of hearing cannot make a decision merely based on the documents
which are not relevant to the hearing or not disclosed to accuse beforehand.
In the case of Subry Hamid v. Husaini [2006] 4 CLJ 50
The plaintiff, a Lance Corporal in the Royal Malaysian Police Force appealed to the
Court of Appeal for dismissal due to misconduct. He contended that he did not know the
disciplinary committee was taking his past record when making a decision. The Court held
that the appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was void.
Application:
Lily requested for more particulars of the charges against her from the SHD. But her
requests were turned down by the Board of Inquiry. So, Lili can challenge the decision made
by the Board of Inquiry under the failure to disclose of all information because Lily has the
right to know the particulars of the charge before the hearing in order to prepare her
defense.
Issue (d):
Whether Lili can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry under the
unacceptance of evidence and relevant materials including statements made by witnesses?
Law and case:
The hearing panel must consider any evidence and relevant materials that be
provided by the accused for his defence, including statements made by witnesses. If the
accused requests that the trial be delayed in order to call his witness, the hearing panel may
not deny or reject the hearing, as it would violate the right of the accused and the rules of
natural justice.
In Malayawata Steel Bhd v. Union of Malayawata Steel Workers
The case was brought to the court by the plaintiff to challenge the decision of the
Industrial Court which decided without giving the opportunity to the plaintiff to bring essential
witnesses. The Industrial Court had denied the plaintiff’s right to be heard reasonably by not
accepting their evidence.
Application:
Lily did not allow to bring in witnesses as it would cause a delay in the proceeding.
So, The Board of Inquiry has violated the right of accused and the rules of natural justice.
So, Lily can challenge the decision made by the Board of Inquiry because he did not allow
Lily to bring in witnesses as it would cause a delay in the proceeding. So, The Board of
Inquiry has violated the right of accused and the rules of natural justice.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Lily can challenge the decision made by The Board of Inquiry under
insufficient time, the opportunity to rebut which is no legal representative is allowed, the
failure to disclose of all information and unacceptance of evidence and relevant materials
including statements made by witnesses.