LAW 309

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PREPARED BY:

NAME STUDENT ID
AHMAD NAWFAL BIN AHMAD MAHADZIR 2021608106
SHAFFIRIN
MUHAMMAD AIDRYLSYAH DANISH BIN SHAHRUL 2021472914
KAMAR
SITI NUR AFIQAH BINTI MOHD REDZUAN 2021623926

CLASS:

N4AM1105C

PREPARED FOR:

MADAM AZLINA BINTI MOHD HUSSAIN

 Table of Contents
MARCH 2017 (QUESTION 1) ................................................................................................. 3

Issue – Charge ............................................................................................................................ 4

Law ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Application ............................................................................................................................. 4

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 4

Issue - Time................................................................................................................................ 5

Law ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Application ............................................................................................................................. 5

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 5

Issue – Disclosure of Materials .................................................................................................. 6

Law ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Application ............................................................................................................................. 6

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 6

Issue – Personal Bias ................................................................................................................. 7

Law ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Application ............................................................................................................................. 7

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 7

Issue – Cross Examination ......................................................................................................... 8

Law ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Application ............................................................................................................................. 8

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 8
MARCH 2017 (QUESTION 1)
PART B

Hang Nadim is the CEO of Bank Rabak. He recently posted on Facebook of his worries about
the state of affairs affecting the Bank, hinting that money in the Bank is being used by the
Chairman for his brother's political activities. The Chairman reported to the Board of Directors
who later decided to take action against Hang Nadim for divulging company's secrets and
behaving in a manner detrimental to the reputation of the Bank.

Hang Nadim was called by the Personnel Department informing him to appear before a Board
of Enquiry the next day to challenge the charge against him. He requested for a copy of the
Chairman's report but his request was turned down on the basis that they were privileged. At
the hearing, the Chairman also sat as one of the panel and Hang Nadim was not allowed to
cross-examine him.

Hang Nadim was dismissed after the proceedings. He is furious with the dismissal and decides
to challenge it. Advise him in the light of the rules of natural justice.
Issue – Charge
The issue is whether Hang Nadim can take any legal action against the CEO of Bank Rabak in
the ground of charge.

Law
The person in question must be informed of the reasons behind the proposed action. In most
cases, an action would be deemed void if it later becomes apparent that it was conducted on a
basis that was not disclosed at the outset. A case that is relevant to this case would be
Maradana Mosque Trustees v Badi-ud-din-Mahmud. In this case, the managers of a school
were called upon by the Minister to explain why they had failed to pay the salaries of the
teachers by the specified date. The managers explained but the government nonetheless took
over the school. It later transpired the government had taken over the school on two grounds,
but explanation called for from the managers related to only one ground while the other was
neither communicated to them nor were they asked to explain it. The managers thus had no
notice of one of the grounds which influenced the government’s decision. The Privy Council
ruled that the Minister was acting in quasi-judicial capacity and was bound to observe the rules
of natural justice which meant that he should have given the managers ‘notice of what was
charged against them and allow them to make representations in answer’. The government
decision was quashed as the managers were not given notice of the ground which was a ‘more
far-reaching matter’ and which influenced the Minister in making in making the order.

Application
To apply with the current case, Hang Nadim was called by the Personnel Department informing
him to appear before a Board of Enquiry the next day to challenge the charge against him.
Based on the decision of the case of Maradana Mosque Trustees v Badi-ud-din-Mahmud,
Hang Nadim has the right to make representations in answer.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Hang Nadim can take legal action against the CEO of Bank Rabak in the ground
of charge.
Issue - Time
The issue is whether Hang Nadim can take any legal action against the CEO of Bank Rabak in
the grounds of time.

Law
A fair opportunity to abide by the notice's provisions must be provided. This implies that the
party in question must be given enough time to write a defense and submit objections. Giving
just one day's notice could be excessively short. This can be seen in the case of Phang Moh
Shin v Commissioner of Police. The complainant contested his termination from the
Singapore Police force on the grounds of natural justice breach, among other things. The
inquiry officer first told him of the charge against him, the court concluded, only before the
hearing started, and he was never provided a copy of the charge. The plaintiff requested a
postponement so he could prepare his defense, but the request was denied. The proceedings
were quashed by the court due to inadequate notice. It further concluded that knowing the
subject matter—even if the plaintiff did—was not the same as understanding the specific
charge against him and the potential punishment for a conviction.

Application
To apply with the current case, Hang Nadim was called by the Personnel Department informing
him to appear before a Board of Enquiry the next day to challenge the charge against him. One
day notice is insufficient and unreasonable. Hang Nadim did not have a chance to prepare a
defense and file objections.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Hang Nadim can take legal action against the CEO of Bank Rabak in the grounds
of time.
Issue – Disclosure of Materials
The issue is whether Hang Nadim can take any legal action against the CEO of Bank Rabak in
the ground of disclosure of materials.

Law
The general rule is that any information that an adjudicating body plans to use to support its
decision against an individual must be disclosed to that individual and they must be given the
chance to respond, refute, explain, or disagree. No information should be used against a party
without first providing that party with a chance to respond. The authorities must notify the
individual in question before using any evidence against them in order for the right to a hearing
to be effective. In the case of Abraham v Law Society of Singapore, a committee looked into
an advocate who had filed a complaint against the applicant. The committee recommended that
he be penalized to the Law Society of Singapore following an oral hearing. He received a notice
from the Law Society asking if he wanted to be consulted before the punishment was applied.
He requested a copy of the enquiry report and stated that he wanted to be heard. This was turned
down. Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) (as it was then known) Section 85(3) mandated that the
Council give an advocate 'a reasonable opportunity to be heard' before making an order
requiring the advocate to pay a penalty. View the updated section 85 provisions now. The
enquiry report's distribution was one aspect of the reasonable opportunity to be heard under
section 85(3) (as it existed at the time). The High Court of Singapore decided, based on Kanda,
that the petitioner had to be provided with a copy of the report in order for him to understand
the nature of the case against him. The judge declared, one essential component of the right to
be heard is the right to copies of all documents that are averse to him or could be averse to him
and are in the possession of the Council.

Application
To apply with the current case, the defendant refuses to give a copy of the Chairman’s report
to the plaintiff. Hang Nadim has the right to obtain all documents that are in the ownership of
his employer. In the current case, the defendant should give the plaintiff a copy of the
Chairman’s report.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Hang Nadim can take a legal action against the CEO of Bank Rabak in the
ground of disclosure of materials.
Issue – Personal Bias
The issue is whether or not Hang Nadim can challenge his dismissal on the grounds of personal
bias.

Law
This can be seen in the case Metropolitan Properties Co V Lannon. In the case, a tenant
wanted to fix a fair rent and issue was brought up to the rent assessment committee of which
Lannon was the chairmen of this committee Lannon had lived with his father who lived in a
flat owned by an associate company in the same group as the company and that was now a
party before Lannon. Lannon had helped his father and other tenants in fixing fair tent for their
flats, The decision of the committee was challenged on the grounds of personal bias. The Court
of Appeal accepted this argument and quashed the committee’s decision that there was a real
likelihood of bias for Lannon.

Application
In the applying the above law, we can conclude that the Chairman was clearly personally
biased. It was his reputation and integrity that was put into question in the first place so he is
incentivized to act in his best interest. It would be very detrimental for him if he was found to
be using the bank’s funds in order to help his brother in his politics. As such it is very
inappropriate for him to sit as a panel member responsible for determining his own innocence.
The fact that he and the panel chose to dismiss Hang Nadim is decision clearly tainted by
personal bias as while he was only one member of the panel, he may have influenced the other
adjudicators

Conclusion
In conclusion, Hang Nadim can challenge his dismissal on the grounds of personal bias.
Issue – Cross Examination
The issue is whether or not Hang Nadim can challenge the dismissal by the Board of Inquiry
on the grounds of cross examination.

Law
Cross examination refers to the ability to question witnesses brought by the opposite party. A
relevant case in regards to this would be the case of Errington V Wilson. In the case there
was a conflict between two experts in regards to cheese. The justice in that case had ruled to
refused cross examination of witness meaning those experts could not be cross examined. She
had essentially made it so that she could not come to a fully informed decision due to the fact
that cross examination was disallowed. This was a refusal of natural justice. Furthermore,
another case that backs up this principle is that of KL Tripathi V State Bank of India. In the
case, the Supreme Court of India laid out the guidelines for Cross Examination. They stated
that if the information given by someone is in doubt for whatever reason or if the information
given in dispute, then cross examination is considered fair play.

Application
In applying the law above, refusal of cross examination was a refusal of natural justice. This
is because Hang Nadim was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses who were testifying
against him. This means he was unable properly argue his case as he barred from questioning
the witnesses in regard to what they had said. He was not allowed to potentially poke holes in
what the witnesses were saying in order to get the whole truth out. This means the Board of
Inquiry could not have possibly come to an Informed decision due to the lack of information
caused by the refusal to allow cross examination.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Hang Nadim can challenge the dismissal by the Board of Inquiry on the grounds
of cross examination due to refusal of natural justice.