Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1937
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
UNIVERSITI SELANGOR (UNISEL) – Appellant
Versus
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-391-12/2023]
The timeliness of an application for judicial review is fundamental to the court's jurisdiction, and extensions are only granted for good reasons provided by the applicant.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - O 53 r 3 - Application for judicial review - Applicant sought leave to commence a judicial review for an order of certiorari to annul the Industrial Court's Award dated 27 October 2022 but was deemed out of time - Court emphasized the necessity for adherence to procedural rules regarding timelines for application, reaffirming that jurisdiction in judicial review is contingent on compliance with these timelines. (Paras 8, 10, 34)
(B) Extension of Time - Application for extension of time under O 53 r 3(7) requires the applicant to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay - Court found the delay of ten months in filing the application unjustified and ineffective for granting an extension. (Paras 20, 35)
(C) Duplicity of Proceedings - Court ruled that the Applicant's attempt to challenge the Industrial Court decision through appeal instead of judicial review was not procedurally correct and could lead to duplicity in proceedings, thus warranting dismissal. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant's challenge to the Industrial Court's Award of constructive dismissal was untimely, with proceedings originally dating back to November 2020; the Applicant's notice of appeal was struck out, necessitating the judicial review application that was ultimately filed in December 2023.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled against granting an extension of time due to lack of good reason provided by the Applicant for the filing delay.
Issues: The court addressed the timeliness of the judicial review application and the appropriateness of appealing via notice rather than pursuing judicial review for the Industrial Court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction for judicial review depends critically on the strict adherence to time limits, and the provision allows discretion for extensions only upon satisfactory explanation of the delay.
Result: The Applicant's application for leave to commence judicial review was dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. extension of time for judicial review application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background facts of the case. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. jurisdiction and timing for filing applications. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. justifications for unexplained delay in filing. (Para 21 , 22 , 26 , 28 , 30) |
| 5. final ruling on the applicant's application. (Para 38 , 39) |
Introduction
[1] The Applicant filed an Amended Application for leave to commence a judicial review proceeding (Encl 39) under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) seeking inter alia, the following:
1.1 Bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk membuat permohonan semakan kehakiman di luar had masa menurut presiding di bawah A 53 k 3 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012; dan
1.2 Bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk memulakan prosiding Semakan Kehakiman di bawah A 53 k 3 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi satu Perintah Certiorari untuk membatalkan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia No 2363 Tahun 2022 bertarikh 27 Oktober 2022 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Puan Rajeswari Karupiah di Mahkamah Perusahaan Kuala Lumpur Kes No. 20/4 2395/20;
1.3 Bahawa satu perintah Certiorari diberikan kepada Mahkamah ini dan Mahkamah ini membatalkan dan/atau mengenepikan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia No 2363 Tahun 2022 bertarikh 27 Oktober 2022 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Puan Rajeswari Karupiah di Mahkamah Perusahaan Kuala Lumpur Kes No. 20/4 2395/20;
1.4 Bahawa segala perlaksanaan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia No 2363 Tahun 2022 bertarikh 27 Oktober 2022 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Puan Rajeswari Karupiah di Mahkamah Perusahaan Kuala Lumpur Kes No 20/4 2395/20 tersebut hendaklah digantungkan sementara menunggu pelupusan Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman yang difailkan di sini termasuk pendengaran substantif dan rayuan terhadap semakan kehakiman (sekiranya keputusan semakan kehakiman ini dirayu);
[2] The 2nd Respondent opposed the Applicant's application (Encl 39) on the ground that the application to file the judicial review to challenge the 1st Respondent's (Industrial Court) decision was filed out of time.
[3] The issue to be decided at this stage was only about the application for an extension of time to file for judicial review.
[4] Only if the application for an extension of time is granted by this Court that the Applicant's application for permission to file for judicial review and to apply for an order of certiorari will arise.
[5] On the contrary, if this Court does not grant the application for an extension of time, the Applicant's application for permission to file a judicial review and to make an application for an order of certiorari will no longer need to be examined by this Court.
[6] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's application for an extension of time to file for judicial review and dismissed the Applicant's Amended Application for leave to commence a judicial review (Encl 39). The reasons for the decision are set down below.
The Background Facts
[7] The background facts can be summarized as follows:
7.1 The 2nd Respondent was appointed as an Associate Professor or "Professor Madya" in the Applicant's Faculty of Business with effect from 21 September 2010. The 2nd Respondent was confirmed in his post on 21 October 2011. His last drawn salary per month was RM10,886.59.
7.2 By a letter dated 14 October 2019 the Applicant transferred the 2nd Respondent from the Faculty of Business & Accountancy based in Shah Alam to Pusat Pengajian Asasi Dan Umum (PADU) located at Bestari Jaya, Selangor. The transfer took effect from 1 November 2019. According to the Director of Human Resources & Administration of the Applicant, Puan Ruhani binti Zakaria, the decision was due to the instructions given to her by the Applicant's top management that consisted of the VC, Deputy VC of Academic, Deputy VC of Student Affairs, Treasurer and Registrar.
7.3 Upon transfer, the 2nd Respondent was to undertake to teach PADU's courses as well as the courses conducted by
