Back
2025 MarsdenLR 360
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
UNIVERSITI SELANGOR (UNISEL) – Appellant
Versus
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-391-12/2023]
Judicial review applications must be filed within strict time limits; failure to comply results in lack of jurisdiction to grant leave.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 53 - Judicial review - Application for leave to commence judicial review filed out of time - Court dismissed application for extension of time due to lack of good reason - Fundamental requirement of time compliance emphasized - Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave if application is out of time. (Paras 8-40)
(B) Jurisdiction - Time limits for judicial review applications are fundamental and must be adhered to - Failure to comply results in lack of jurisdiction to entertain the application. (Paras 9-10)
(C) Duplicity of proceedings - Attempt to challenge decision through appeal instead of judicial review deemed irregular - Proper procedure must be followed to avoid duplicity. (Paras 13-19)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant sought leave for judicial review against an award from the Industrial Court claiming constructive dismissal of the 2nd Respondent, which was issued on 27 October 2022. The application for judicial review was filed on 8 December 2023, well beyond the stipulated time.
Findings of Court:
The application for leave was dismissed as it was filed out of time without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Applicant could obtain an extension of time to file for judicial review given the strict time limits imposed by the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with the time frame for judicial review applications is fundamental to jurisdiction, and failure to provide a good reason for delay results in dismissal of the application.
Result: Application for leave to commence judicial review dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Applicant filed an Amended Application for leave to commence a judicial review proceeding (Encl 39) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 ( ROC ) seeking inter alia, the following:
1.1 Bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk membuat permohonan semakan kehakiman di luar had masa menurut presiding di bawah A 53 k 3 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012; dan
1.2 Bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk memulakan prosiding Semakan Kehakiman di bawah A 53 k 3 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi satu Perintah Certiorari untuk membatalkan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia No 2363 Tahun 2022 bertarikh 27 Oktober 2022 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Puan Rajeswari Karupiah di Mahkamah Perusahaan Kuala Lumpur Kes No. 20/4 2395/20;
1.3 Bahawa satu perintah Certiorari diberikan kepada Mahkamah ini dan Mahkamah ini membatalkan dan/atau mengenepikan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia No 2363 Tahun 2022 bertarikh 27 Oktober 2022 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Puan Rajeswari Karupiah di Mahkamah Perusahaan Kuala Lumpur Kes No. 20/4 2395/20;
1.4 Bahawa segala perlaksanaan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia No 2363 Tahun 2022 bertarikh 27 Oktober 2022 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Puan Rajeswari Karupiah di Mahkamah Perusahaan Kuala Lumpur Kes No 20/4 2395/20 tersebut hendaklah digantungkan sementara menunggu pelupusan Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman yang difailkan di sini termasuk pendengaran substantif dan rayuan terhadap semakan kehakiman (sekiranya keputusan semakan kehakiman ini dirayu);
[2] The 2nd Respondent opposed the Applicant's application (Encl 39) on the ground that the application to file the judicial review to challenge the 1st Respondent's (Industrial Court ) decision was filed out of time.
[3] The issue to be decided at this stage was only about the application for an extension of time to file for judicial review.
[4] Only if the application for an extension of time is granted by this Court that the Applicant's application for permission to file for judicial review and to apply for an order of certiorari will arise.
[5] On the contrary, if this Court does not grant the application for an extension of time, the Applicant's application for permission to file a judicial review and to make an application for an order of certiorari will no longer need to be examined by this Court .
[6] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's application for an extension of time to file for judicial review and dismissed the Applicant's Amended Application for leave to commence a judicial review (Encl 39). The reasons for the decision are set down below.
The Background Facts
[7] The background facts can be summarized as follows:
7.1 The 2nd Respondent was appointed as an Associate Professor or "Professor Madya" in the Applicant's Faculty of Business with effect from 21 September 2010. The 2nd Respondent was confirmed in his post on 21 October 2011. His last drawn salary per month was RM10,886.59.
7.2 By a letter dated 14 October 2019 the Applicant transferred the 2nd Respondent from the Faculty of Business & Accountancy based in Shah Alam to Pusat Pengajian Asasi Dan Umum (PADU) located at Bestari Jaya, Selangor. The transfer took effect from 1 November 2019. According to the Director of Human Resources & Administration of the Applicant, Puan Ruhani binti Zakaria, the decision was due to the instructions given to her by the Applicant's top management that consisted of the VC, Deputy VC of Academic, Deputy VC of Student Affairs, Treasurer and Registrar.
7.3 Upon transfer, the 2nd Respondent was to undertake to teach PADU's courses as well as the courses conducted by the Communication, Visual Arts & Computer Studies Faculty, Engineering & Life Sciences Faculty and Education & Social Studies Faculty.
7.4 On 18 October 2019, the 2nd Respondent wrote to the VC to seek clarification on what expertise he possesses to teach at PADU and the 3 faculties namely, Communication, Visual Arts & Computer Studies Faculty, Engineering & Life
