HOME

“The appellants further contend that the decision was rational because it reflected the policy of the Kedah State Government. That submission again mistakes policy for legality. It does not answer the legal challenge.”

“A decision may be motivated by policy and yet be unlawful if the decision-maker acts outside the limits of its powers. It may be sincerely held and yet irrational if it proceeds on a material mistake, ignores the governing constitutional and statutory framework, or treats an irrelevant premise as determinative.”

“Here, the decision was unlawful because it deployed local business premises licensing for an impermissible purpose. It was unconstitutional because, in substance and effect, it intruded into the federal field of betting and lotteries. It was irrational because it proceeded, at least in part, on the erroneous basis that the Ministry of Finance would not renew the relevant federal licences and because it failed to confront the legal significance of licences that were in fact renewed under the Pool Betting Act 1967.” - Per Faizah Jamaluddin JCA in Kerajaan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman & Anor v. Lee Bak Chui & Ors And Other Appeals [2026] 6 CLJ 645; [2026] CLJU 1678

“The power conferred by O. 14A is a salutary summary jurisdiction aimed at the efficient disposal of litigation where a determinative question of law can be identified and resolved on undisputed facts. As the Federal Court explained in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd & Other Appeals [2014] 7 CLJ 597, the jurisdiction is exercisable where: (i) the question is a pure question of law; (ii) the question can be resolved on facts that are undisputed or agreed; (iii) the determination would finally dispose of the whole cause or matter or a claim or issue therein; and (iv) the determination is suitable without a full trial.”

“As to what constitutes a “pure question of law”, the courts have consistently held that the question need not be simple or uncomplicated. A question of statutory construction – however contested the parties' submissions – remains a question of law if its resolution depends solely upon the meaning, scope and effect of the statutory provision and does not turn upon the resolution of disputed primary facts.”

“I am of the considered view that the threshold requirement of undisputed facts does not demand that every conceivable factual question in the litigation be free from controversy. It requires only that the relevant facts necessary for the resolution of the stated legal question be undisputed. Where the primary facts material to the legal question are agreed or unanswerable, the O. 14A jurisdiction is available notwithstanding the existence of other factual disputes that would, if the legal question is answered in the applicant's favour, become academic.” - Per Rajes Raghavji JC in Pesako Technology Sdn Bhd v. Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2026] 6 CLJ 308