Instead, the crucial safeguard was for the electorate to make wise voting choices to put an honest and incorruptible government into power. First, the reasoning in cases supporting a subjective test was found to be questionable,  and, secondly, such a test was inconsistent with Article 12 1 of the Constitution.
As regards the first reason, he has argued that the distinction between domestic law and general law is problematic. Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. He held that while the respondents had argued that the provision Yee yut ee 1978 denied the court the ability to question the determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission, the question at hand did not even involve the questioning of the purported determination and instead focused on whether there was in fact a valid determination.
These ouster clauses may be total or partial. Ultimately, the Court quashed the order made by the Industrial Arbitration Court because it contained an error of law which had caused that court to exceed its jurisdiction.
However, he made it clear that he was not expressing an opinion on the issue. The property of a company is its own, and not that of its members.
This legal person is actually a legal fiction. However, the clause is not effective in preventing judicial review of errors of law that affect the jurisdiction of the authority to make the decision.
The company had retrenched their staff and dispute arose as to the retrenchment benefits. Minister for Home Affairs,  which had held to the contrary. The principle establishing the separate legal personality of the company from the members was applied in the case of: Thenceforward it was to be taken that Parliament had only conferred the decision-making power on the basis that it was to be exercised on the correct legal basis: It would not be in the public interest if applicants could challenge decisions after the time limit for doing so had expired, as this would delay actions taken by the executive.
Mackman  and opined that "the decision in [Anisminic] rendered obsolete the distinction between errors of law on the face of the record and other errors of law by extending the doctrine of ultra vires.
When paragraphs such as those considered in ex p.
Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler  the Court of Appeal of England and Wales applied Smith and upheld the validity of a partial ouster clause that gave the applicants six weeks to challenge a decision.
Lord Dyson emphasized that "the scope of judicial review should be no more as well as no less than is proportionate and necessary for the maintaining of the rule of law".
In the former situation, a total ouster clause precluded the courts from exercising their supervisory function and issuing any prerogative orders to quash the erroneous action. Though Anisminic did not expressly abolish the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law, in R.
In a company limited by shares, the members will make a contribution to the capital and he will be given shares. The third view takes a middle ground that allows for certain exceptions to the approach in the second view.
It may have made a decision which it had no power to make. Therefore, it might be argued that ouster clauses, which are intended to make decisions by public authorities and other decision-makers final and unchallengeable before the courts, should be held void and ineffective as they deprive the aggrieved party of an avenue of seeking judicial review.ADMINISTRATIVE LAW mint-body.com © Table of Contents 1.
What is administrative law? THE LIABILITY OF THE MEMBERS MAY BE LIMITED Re Application by Yee Yut Ee  SLR Significance: Facts: Yee was the secretary of Trans-Market Research (The Company). Facts: Macaura owned an estate in Ireland. Besides that. In addition. In Macaura v Northen Assurance Co.
Once a company is incorporated. 17 18  2 MLJ  AC the creditors will suffer if the company incurs debts which it is unable to pay and they cannot take any legal action against the members because the members are separate from the company.5/5(3).
As the company did not comply with the award, the Arbitration Court ordered that Yee be personally liable as he had been appointed director by then. The High court held that a director is not liable for the company’s debts. scs&ismk/company law F: Yee was a secretary of a company.
The company retrenched its staff and matters concerning retrenchment benefit was referred to Industrial Arbitration Court, which had ordered an award. Meanwhile, Yee was appointed as a director and when the company failed to comply with the award, an action was made against Yee.
May 09, · Yut Fook Yee loosely translates into "One Hand Parries Two". This drill is designed to develop the block and simultaneous counter attack of the practitioner.Download