Members of the public are constantly faced with the consequences of decisions made by the government of the day and statutory bodies. It is natural to expect that one would therefore have access to the rationale behind important determinations that directly impact one’s life and community.
The obligation of a local authority to provide reasons for its decisions, was addressed in the Federal Court’s decision of Perbadanan Pengurusan Sunrise Garden Kondominium v Sunway City (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Ors and Another Appeal [2023] MLJU 98.
Brief Facts
- The subject matter of the case concerns the planning approval granted by the local authority, i.e. Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang, to a hillside land in Penang for housing development.
- The 1st Respondent, Sunway City (Penang) Sdn Bhd (“Sunway”), applied to the local authority for planning permission to develop the hillside land.
- The local authorities then served notices to the neighbouring owners, which includes the Appellant, Perbadanan Pengurusan Sunrise Garden Kondominium (“Sunrise Gardens”) on their rights to object to Sunway’s application for planning permission.
- Sunrise Gardens together with other neighbouring land owners objected to Sunway’s application.
- A meeting was convened by the local authority for the land owners to voice their objections but the local authority did not get back to them.
- Sunway was eventually granted with the planning permission by the local authority.
- The local authority then informed Sunrise Gardens of its decision to grant the planning permission but no reason was given behind the decision or why Sunrise Garden’s objections were not accepted.
- Sunrise Gardens appealed the decision of the local authority to the Penang State Planning Appeal Board. The Appeal Board set aside the planning permission granted by the local authority but Sunway commenced a judicial review application to quash the Appeal Board’s decision.
- The High Court quashed the Appeal Board’s decision and the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision.
- Sunrise Gardens appealed to the Federal Court.
Federal Court Decision
There were many issues that were decided in this case but this article is focused on whether the local authority is required to provide reasons for its decision.
The Federal Court began by scrutinising Sections 21(6) and (7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (“TCPA”) which provides that where there is no local plan, the local authority shall inform owners of neighbouring lands of their rights to object to an application for planning permission and the local authority shall hear these objections.
The Federal Court found that the right to be heard accorded under Sections 21(6) and (7) of the TCPA is of substantive in nature where the objections must not only be heard but be considered and weighed. The right to be heard should not be literally interpreted as just having one’s objection “heard” – but rather the objections should be heard and dispose of or resolved.
Although the TCPA did not expressly stipulate so, public bodies have a duty to give reasons for their decisions. If there is no duty on the local authority to provide reasons, then the statutory rights of these neighbouring land owners under the said provisions of the TCPA will be rendered nugatory. Furthermore, these neighbouring land owners have a legitimate expectation as citizens to know how important decisions which potentially could affect the quality of their lives, such as in this case, were reached. This is turn would also promote transparency in the decision-making process of the local authority under the TCPA.
Key Takeaways
This decision sets a clear reminder to public bodies that important decisions have to be properly considered and reasoned. Paying lip service is not sufficient. Natural justice requires reasons be given to such decisions, notwithstanding the absence of any express provisions in statutes requiring these bodies to do so.
Although the judgment did not go into length as to how detailed these reasons have to be, it was held that persons affected by the public body’s decision must be able to comprehend why such decisions were reached and ascertain whether it was made lawfully. The Federal Court’s decision reinforces the importance of transparency in the decision-making process of public bodies, to curtail any abuse of power.
***
This article was written by Sean Ferdinand Ng (Associate) from Donovan & Ho’s dispute resolution practice.
Donovan & Ho is a law firm in Malaysia, and our employment practice group has built a reputation for providing strategic employment advice to local and global organisations. Our team of employment lawyers provide advice on employment law and industrial relations including review of employment contracts, policies and handbooks, advising on workforce reductions, and managing dismissals of employees for poor performance or misconduct. We also represent clients in unfair dismissal claims and employment-related litigation. Have a question? Please contact us.
