Judicial review applications must exhaust statutory grievance procedures and comply with relevant rules; failure to do so renders the application flawed and dismissible.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicants filed an application for judicial review (Enclosure 8) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC).

[2] Leave was granted to the Applicants for application for judicial review against the Respondent to seek the following reliefs:-

2.1 Suatu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan Responden dalam bentuk surat bertarikh 5 Ogos 2022 bernombor rujukan LKPU.100-2/15/J1(1)/(22-321) atas alasan bahawa Keputusan Responden adalah menyalahi undang-undang, melebihi kuasa, tidak munasabah atau merupakan penafian terhadap jangkaan sah Pemohon-Pemohon atau kesemuanya atau sebahagian daripadanya;

2.2 Suatu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan Responden yang telah dibuat di mesyuarat 8 Januari 1985 atas alasan bahawa Keputusan 8 Januari 1985 adalah menyalahi undang-undang, melebihi kuasa, tidak munasabah atau merupakan penafian terhadap jangkaan sah Pemohon-Pemohon atau kesemuanya atau sebahagian daripadanya;

2.3 Bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk memohon suatu deklarasi bahawa Keputusan Responden adalah menyalahi Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 dan Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Undang-Undang (Kerani Berartikel) 1979;

2.4 Suatu deklarasi bahawa Keputusan 8 Januari 1985 adalah menyalahi Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 dan Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Undang-Undang (Kerani Berartikel) 1979;

2.5 Suatu perintah larangan bagi tujuan menghalang Responden daripada mengguna pakai keputusan Responden di mesyuarat 8 January 1985 kerana keputusan tersebut menyalahi Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 dan Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Undang-Undang (Kerani Berartikel) 1979;

2.6 Suatu perintah mandamus yang mengarahkan Responden untuk mendaftaraikan kemasukan Pemohon Kedua dalam artikel selaras Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 dan Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Undang-Undang (Kerani Berartikel) 1979 dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh penghakiman permohonan ini;

2.7 Bahawa segala arahan dan perintah yang perlu dan berakibat diberikan;

2.8 Bahawa kos permohonan ini; dan

2.9 Apa-apa relief yang disifatkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.

[3] In essence, the Applicants filed this application to judicially review the Respondent's decision on 8 January 1985 to disallow the 2nd Applicant's application as an Articled Clerk according to r 4 of the Legal Profession (Articled Clerk) Rules 1979 (the 1979 Rules).

[4] The Respondent's decision was made according to s 6 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ).

[5] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicants' judicial review application (Enclosure 8). This judgment states the reason for my decision.

Background Facts

[6] The background facts of the application gathered from the cause papers and submissions of the parties are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows:-

6.1 On 27 June 2022, the 2nd Applicant underwent an interview conducted by the 1st Applicant, with the intent of being assessed for the prospective role of an Article Clerk;

6.2 Subsequently, on the 30 June 2022, an offer was extended by the 2nd Applicant to the 1st Applicant, proposing the appointment of the 2nd Applicant for the position of Articled Clerk within the 1st Applicant's firm;

6.3 On 1 July 2022, the 2nd Applicant submitted documents, for the purpose of registration for the Articles of Clerkship, to the Respondent for consideration;

6.4 On 7 July 2022 the 2nd Applicant formally executed an instrument of clerkship, confirming the 2nd Applicant's appointment as an Articled Clerk, under the tutelage of the 1st Applicant;

6.5 On 29 July 2022, the 1st Applicant sent a letter to the Respondent with the Registration Application, inclusive of some supportive documentation;

6.6 However, on 5 August 2022, the Respondent issued a letter to the 1st Applicant, rejecting the 2nd Applicant's Articled Clerkship application;

6.7 Pursuant to the Respondent's rejection letter, the Respondent explained the 2nd Applicant's application for Articled Clerkship was rejected due to the abolition of Articled C