KC Vohrah J:

An application for leave for an order for certiorari under O. 53 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) was made before me. Leave was refused. It has to be noted that O. 53 RHC relating to the application for the order of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, etc is derived from O. 53 English RSC 1965 before it was replaced by the public law remedy of "judicial review" by S.1. 1977 No: 1955.

Our O. 53 r. 1 is substantially similar to the present English O. 53 r. 3(1). Under the present English r. 3 there is provision for an applicant who has been refused leave to renew application for leave unlike our provision but it does appear that the principles under the O. 53 RSC relating to whether leave should or should not be given generally equally apply to our O. 53 (see Tuan Hj. Sarip Hamid v. Patco Malaysia Bhd [1995] 3 CLJ 627; [1995] 2 MLJ 442 and the discussion by Visu Sinnadurai J in Bandar Utama Development Bhd v. Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia [1998] 1 MLJ 230, 233-235).

It is apposite to state the purpose of the leave stage and I quote from De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative Actions, 5th edn. 1995:

The leave stage in Order 53