Judicial review can quash decisions of inferior tribunals for irrationality and procedural impropriety, particularly when relevant factors are not considered, and parties are not afforded a fair opportunity to present their case.

Introduction

[1] This is a judicial review application dated 8 February 2023 by the Applicant for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent, the Tribunal for Consumer Claims ("Tribunal"). The Tribunal had handed down an award dated 8 November 2022, which ordered the Applicant to pay a sum of RM24,982.60 to the 2nd Respondent. The Applicant attempted to set aside the said award on 11 January 2023, which attempt was unsuccessful.

[2] On 31 July 2023, I allowed the judicial review application. Here are the grounds of my decision.

The Judicial Review Application

[3] In this judicial review application, the Applicant sought for the following reliefs:

"(a) Bahawa kebenaran di beri kepada Pemohon selaras dengan Aturan 53 dalam Kaedah - Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk memohon Semakan Hakiman atas Perintah bertarikh 11 Januari 2023 dan / atau Awad bertarikh 8 November 2022 yang kedua - dua nya di keluarkan oleh Presiden, Responden Pertama, di Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna di Seberang Perai Tengah, dalam Tuntutan No. TTPM-P-(P)-386-2022 ("Tribunal tersebuf);

(b) Bahawa, sekira nya kebenaran di beri dalam perenggan (a) di atas, Pemohon pohon suatu Perintah Certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan yang di berikan oleh Responden Pertama kepada Responden Kedua melalui Awad bertarikh 8 November 2022 dalam Tribunal tersebut pada asas bahawa Awad tersebut ada lah ketidakwarasan, tidak sah, menyalahi undang - undang dan atau tidak munasabah;"

Background Facts

[4] On 10 May 2016, the 2nd Respondent purchased a car i.e. Volkswagen Passat B7 ("Car") from an authorised dealer. The 2nd Respondent alleges that the Car was subject to a recall campaign. The 2nd Respondent learnt of the recall from a website "paultan.org". According to the Applicant however, the said website has nothing to do with them.

[5] On 5 October 2022, the 2nd Respondent lodged a claim against the Applicant for a sum of RM24,982.60 at the Tribunal in Seberang Perai Tengah vide Claim No. TTPM-P-(P)-386-2022. Under the 'Particular of Claim', the 2nd Respondent stated - "DSG Dry Dual-Clutch Transmission Failure".

[6] The claim sum of RM24,982.60 was derived from 2 quotations. Namely a quotation issued by the Volkswagen service centre for a sum of RM11,148.90. And a quotation issued by a car worshop to an unknown third party for a sum of RM13,833.70.

[7] The Applicant prepared and served their defence dated 2 November 2022, which was received by the Tribunal on 8 November 2022.

[8] The Applicant avers that they were not notified of the 8 November 2022 hearing date at the material time. This is evidenced in their letter to the Tribunal attached to Form 12 (application to set aside) dated 11 November 2022. Which stated that the 8 November 2022 hearing date was only made known to the Applicant orally when an officer from the Tribunal called the Applicant.

[9] The said letter reads:

"Saya tidak hadir di pendengaran kerana:

We would like to inform you that we have filed the statement of defence to your good office, which was sent via post. However, the statement of defence was received by your good office on the day of the hearing, which was on Tuesday, 8th November 2022.

We also would like to inform you that we did not receive any letter from your good office to notify us of the hearing date. The reason why we did not get your notification is because the address stated was different, as confirmed by your Officer who called us on 8th November 2022 via your phone number +604 - 3840122, as we have now moved to the followin