Back
2023 MarsdenLR 492
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AGENSI PEKERJAAN RELIABLE (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-73-03/2023]
Compliance with time frames for judicial review is fundamental to jurisdiction; failure to comply renders applications flawed and without merit.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 53 - Judicial review - Application for leave to commence judicial review filed out of time - Court held that compliance with time frames is fundamental to jurisdiction; failure to comply renders application flawed and without merit. (Paras 5, 6, 12, 56)
(B) Intitule requirement - Requirement to state specific provisions of law in the intitule of applications is mandatory and failure to do so is fatal to the application. (Paras 10, 14, 22)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant sought leave for judicial review against an award granted to the 2nd Respondent in the Applicant's absence, claiming procedural impropriety and lack of notice. The application was filed over a year after the award was communicated.
Findings of Court:
The Applicant's failure to plead the specific legal provisions and to file within the statutory time frame resulted in a lack of jurisdiction for the Court to hear the application.
Issues: The main issues were whether the application was filed in time and whether the intitulation was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the application was out of time and the intitulation was fundamentally defective, confirming that the rules regarding time frames are crucial for jurisdiction.
Result: Leave application dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for leave to commence judicial review. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of the case. (Para 4) |
| 3. mandatory time frame for judicial review applications. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. preliminary objection on intitulement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. jurisdiction concerns regarding delays. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. service of award and notice issues. (Para 30 , 31 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. lack of satisfactory explanation for delay. (Para 48 , 50 , 54) |
| 8. conclusion on the application for leave. (Para 55 , 56) |
Introduction
[1] The Applicant filed an application for leave to commence judicial review proceeding (encl 1) under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC ) seeking inter alia the following orders:
1.1 Bahawa kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohonuntuk memfailkan permohonan semakan di sini di luar tempoh masa;
1.2 Bahawa kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohon untuk memfailkan permohonan semakan di sini dan dianggap sebagai baik dan boleh diterima untuk dibicarakan;
1.3 Bahawa kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohon di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk memulakan prosiding Semakan Kehakiman terhadap Responden-Responden berkaitan dengan Award bagi Pihak Yang Menuntut Jika Penentang Tidak Hadir bertarikh 22 Mac 2022 yang dikeluarkan oleh Responden Pertama terhadap Pemohon di atas tuntutan yang difailkan oleh Responden Kedua di Tuntutan No TTPM-WP-(P)-260-2021 untuk relif-relif yang berikut:
1.3.1 Satu perintah bahawa Award tersebut yang dikeluarkan oleh Responden Pertama adalah dibatalkan; dan
1.3.2 Satu deklarasi bahawa Responden Pertama telah bertindak bertentangan dengan prosedur undang-undang apabila memberikan Award tersebut kepada Responden Kedua.
[2] In essence, the Applicant filed this application for an abrigement and/or extension of time to file leave for judicial review and leave for judicial review respectively under O 53 r 3(1) and 3(6) of the ROC primarily on the ground of procedural impropriety that the decision of the 1st Respondent, Consumer Claim Tribunal was obtained by non-attendance of the Applicant at the date of the hearing on 22 Maarch 2022.
[3] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's Leave Application (Enclosure 1). This judgment states the reasons for my decision.
Background Facts
[4] The background facts of the application gathered from the cause papers are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows:
4.1 On 25 Mac 2021 the 2nd Respondent filed a consumer claim before the 1st Respondent at the Tribunal of Kuala Lumpur (Tribunal) under claim no: TTPM-WP-(P)-260-2021 against the Applicant for failure to deliver housemaid according to the terms in agreement signed on 29 Ogos 2019 entered into between the 2nd Respondent and the Applicant.
4.2 On 22 March 2022, in the absence of the Applicant, the Tribunal awarded the 2nd Respondent the sum of RM41,687.40 (Award) against the Applicant.
4.3 On 24 March 2023 the Applicant filed the present judicial review application in encl 1 after the 2nd Respondent had executed the Award by way of garnishee proceedings of which the show cause order dated 20 February 2023 has been obtained from the Magistrate Court. An absolute order of garnishee was granted on 30 May 2023 by the Magistrate Court.
4.4 The Applicant contended that the Borang 1 has been wrongly addressed rendering them to have no proper knowledge of the 2nd Respondent's claim at the Tribunal. The Applicant alleged they were only aware of the Award on 13 Mac 2023.
The Law
[5] Order 53 r 3(6) of the ROC provides that an application shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the Applicant. Case law authorities have established that when an ex parte leave application was not filed within the stipulated time, the judgment would be irregular.
[6] Further, the Court of Appeal in Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bh
