The trend of judicial thinking in reviewing corporate decisions in Malaysia

Che Norlia Mustafa

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    It is common knowledge that one of the primary functions of the judiciary is to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. This is obvious in a situation of the individual versus the government, where the court is relatively unequivocal (save in national security matters) about using its power of judicial review on the executive, legislative, administrative or public authorities. Cases involving an individual citizen and the government as well as its administrative bodies are well-documented. Marbury v Madison (5 U.S (1 Cr.) 137 1803) is a celebrated example within common law jurisdiction. In terms of individuals versus corporate and other private bodies, such as companies and regulatory (including self regulatory) bodies, the number of cases which successfully challenged corporate decisions is scant, if not nil. The courts, at least in Malaysia, have been very reluctant to intervene in matters involving corporate decisions or maladministration. It is argued in this paper that the judicial stance in dealing with such cases in Malaysia is somewhat rigid and conservative even though the rights and interests of the claimants are often severely infringed and at times abrogated.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)107-116
    Number of pages10
    JournalInternational Journal of Business and Society
    Volume13
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    Reviewing
    Malaysia
    Government
    Jurisdiction
    Authority
    Common law
    Judiciary
    Common knowledge
    National security
    Safeguards

    Keywords

    • Amenability issue
    • Corporate decisions
    • Judicial review
    • Malaysian judicial stance

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Economics and Econometrics
    • Finance
    • Strategy and Management
    • Business and International Management

    Cite this

    The trend of judicial thinking in reviewing corporate decisions in Malaysia. / Mustafa, Che Norlia.

    In: International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2012, p. 107-116.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{77948ab619824c5e91eb28b62282d75e,
    title = "The trend of judicial thinking in reviewing corporate decisions in Malaysia",
    abstract = "It is common knowledge that one of the primary functions of the judiciary is to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. This is obvious in a situation of the individual versus the government, where the court is relatively unequivocal (save in national security matters) about using its power of judicial review on the executive, legislative, administrative or public authorities. Cases involving an individual citizen and the government as well as its administrative bodies are well-documented. Marbury v Madison (5 U.S (1 Cr.) 137 1803) is a celebrated example within common law jurisdiction. In terms of individuals versus corporate and other private bodies, such as companies and regulatory (including self regulatory) bodies, the number of cases which successfully challenged corporate decisions is scant, if not nil. The courts, at least in Malaysia, have been very reluctant to intervene in matters involving corporate decisions or maladministration. It is argued in this paper that the judicial stance in dealing with such cases in Malaysia is somewhat rigid and conservative even though the rights and interests of the claimants are often severely infringed and at times abrogated.",
    keywords = "Amenability issue, Corporate decisions, Judicial review, Malaysian judicial stance",
    author = "Mustafa, {Che Norlia}",
    year = "2012",
    language = "English",
    volume = "13",
    pages = "107--116",
    journal = "International Journal of Business and Society",
    issn = "1511-6670",
    publisher = "Universiti Malaysia Sarawak",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The trend of judicial thinking in reviewing corporate decisions in Malaysia

    AU - Mustafa, Che Norlia

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - It is common knowledge that one of the primary functions of the judiciary is to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. This is obvious in a situation of the individual versus the government, where the court is relatively unequivocal (save in national security matters) about using its power of judicial review on the executive, legislative, administrative or public authorities. Cases involving an individual citizen and the government as well as its administrative bodies are well-documented. Marbury v Madison (5 U.S (1 Cr.) 137 1803) is a celebrated example within common law jurisdiction. In terms of individuals versus corporate and other private bodies, such as companies and regulatory (including self regulatory) bodies, the number of cases which successfully challenged corporate decisions is scant, if not nil. The courts, at least in Malaysia, have been very reluctant to intervene in matters involving corporate decisions or maladministration. It is argued in this paper that the judicial stance in dealing with such cases in Malaysia is somewhat rigid and conservative even though the rights and interests of the claimants are often severely infringed and at times abrogated.

    AB - It is common knowledge that one of the primary functions of the judiciary is to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. This is obvious in a situation of the individual versus the government, where the court is relatively unequivocal (save in national security matters) about using its power of judicial review on the executive, legislative, administrative or public authorities. Cases involving an individual citizen and the government as well as its administrative bodies are well-documented. Marbury v Madison (5 U.S (1 Cr.) 137 1803) is a celebrated example within common law jurisdiction. In terms of individuals versus corporate and other private bodies, such as companies and regulatory (including self regulatory) bodies, the number of cases which successfully challenged corporate decisions is scant, if not nil. The courts, at least in Malaysia, have been very reluctant to intervene in matters involving corporate decisions or maladministration. It is argued in this paper that the judicial stance in dealing with such cases in Malaysia is somewhat rigid and conservative even though the rights and interests of the claimants are often severely infringed and at times abrogated.

    KW - Amenability issue

    KW - Corporate decisions

    KW - Judicial review

    KW - Malaysian judicial stance

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870626342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870626342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    VL - 13

    SP - 107

    EP - 116

    JO - International Journal of Business and Society

    JF - International Journal of Business and Society

    SN - 1511-6670

    IS - 2

    ER -