Judicial review extension applications require strict adherence to time limits; delays affect jurisdiction, not merits.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the decision of the High Court in dismissing the appellants' application for leave for extension of time to file an application for judicial review pursuant to O 53 r 3 of the Rules of the High 1980 ("the RHC").

[2] On 6 September 2012, we heard and dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.

Background Facts

[3] Briefly, the facts are these. The company known as Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd ("the 2nd respondent") had been granted mining rights under a lease. At the material time, the 2nd respondent was in the midst of building a Carbon-In-Leach Plant ("CIL Plant") near Kampung Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang ("Kampung Bukit Koman") to process old gold mine tailings using cyanide.

[4] The Director General of the Department of Environment ("the 1st respondent"), the authority responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 (" EQA "), had on 13 January 1997 approved the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") report submitted by the 2nd respondent ("the 1st decision").

[5] The appellants who were residents and owners of the properties at Kampung Bukit Koman, and also members of the committee campaigning against the construction of the CIL Plant was of the view that the EIA report did not comply with the requirements of s 34A of the EQA and/or regulations and/or guidelines thereunder. Accordingly, the appellants applied to the 1st respondent for the 2nd respondent to submit a detailed EIA of the CIL Plant to it.

[6] On 21 February 2008, the 1st respondent informed the appellants that as the EIA report had already been approved on 13 January 1997, their request was misplaced ("the 2nd decision").

[7] On 21 March 2008, the appellants filed an application in the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review inter alia, to quash the 1st decision as well as a declaration that the 2nd decision of the 1st respondent was unfair and unreasonable, against the principles of natural justice, contrary to s 34A of the EQA and in violation of their human rights. The application also sought for an extension of time to file the leave application in respect of the 1st decision since the application was filed outside the scope of 40 days period prescribed under O 53 r 3 of the RHC.

[8] On 1 June 2009, the High Court dismissed the appellants' application. It was held that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in filing the application. The delay was more than 11 years from the time the 1st decision was made known to the public, and more than one year from the time it was communicated to them. It was also held that, the delay in the filing of appellants' application for leave to file the application for judicial review goes to jurisdiction and the merits of the case need not be considered in hearing an application for extension of time. In respect to the 2nd decision, the learned judge held that it was not a decision that is amenable to judicial review.

[9] On 3 August 2011, the Court of Appeal, unanimously affirmed the decision of the learned High Court Judge.

Leave To Appeal To Federal Court

[10] On 11 January 2012, leave to appeal was granted by this Court and the sole question framed for determination was:

"Having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mersing Omnibus Co Sdn Bhd v. Minister of Labour and Manpower , 1983 MarsdenLR 63 , and Ravindran v. Malays