The court's review powers are limited to exceptional circumstances, and the absence of objection from respondents does not obligate the court to grant leave to appeal.

Introduction

[1] This is an application for leave to review this Court's decision dated 7 July 2021 dismissing the Applicant's application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court.

[2] We heard the application on 6 April 2023 and thereafter unanimously dismissed it with costs of RM20,000.00 to the 1st to 5th Respondents and costs of RM5,000.00 to the 6th to 7th Respondents, all subject to allocatur. We now provide the grounds of our decision below.

Background

[3] On 5 August 2014, Shazrin Hassan deceased ("Applicant as represented by his estate") whilst riding a motorcycle was involved in a motor vehicle collision with another motorcycle ridden by Mahendran Narasimaloo deceased ("1st Respondent as represented by his estate") as well as a lorry driven by Kavi Thasan Nagamuthu ("6th Respondent") owned by Kapar Florist Enterprise ("7th Respondent"). The other 2nd to 5th Respondents viz Kaviephriya Mahendran, Shivalakshmi Mahendran, Saranya Mahendran and Ilaiya Roja Mahendran are the children and dependents of the 1st Respondent.

[4] The 1st to 5th Respondents thereafter brought a negligence suit in the Klang Sessions Court against the Applicant, 6th Respondent and 7th Respondent.

[5] After trial, the Sessions Court found the Applicant 90% liable and the 6th and 7th Respondent jointly 10% liable to the 1st to 5th Respondents respectively.

[6] Subsequently, the Applicant as well as the 6th and 7th Respondents appealed to the Shah Alam High Court against the decision of the Sessions Court but the appeals were dismissed.

[7] By reason that the adjudged sum awarded is below the RM250,000.00 threshold pursuant to s 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA"), the Applicant applied for leave to appeal to this Court. The 6th and 7th Respondents applied for leave to appeal too.

[8] However, the Applicant's application for leave to appeal was unanimously dismissed by this Court on 7 April 2021 ("Decision"). Likewise, the 6th and 7th Respondents application for leave to appeal was also dismissed.

[9] As the result, the Applicant on 7 July 2021 applied to this Court for leave to review the Decision ("Application"). The 6th and 7th Respondents did not do so.

Findings Of This Court

[10] Although not specifically stated therein, the Application seems to be made under r 28B or r 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 which reads:

Rule 28B. Application to review Court's order

(1) Where the Court of Appeal is the apex Court, parties may file an application for leave to review the decision of refusing leave to appeal.

(2) All application for review of the decision of refusing leave to appeal shall be made by Notice of Motion with a payment of the prescribed fee.

(3) The Court's decision on the application to review leave to appeal shall be final and binding on the parties.

Rule 105. Inherent powers of the Court

For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

See also Ramanathan Chelliah v. PP ; [1996] 2 MLJ 538; [1995] 1 AMR 714

[11] In this respect, we noted that Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid JCA held as follows in Dee Bee Yoke & Anor v. Nick Abu Dasuki Abu Hassan & Anor ; [2016] 12 MLJ 39; [2016] 6 AMR 693 (CA) with emphasis added by us:

"[10] In as much as learned Counsel for the applicants wanted us to hear his full submission on the matter, which would actually entail us "rehearing" the appeal, we directed him to address us on the threshold issue of whether or not the applicants had satisfied the conditions/special circumstances stipulated