Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6329
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BIOENERGY FORCE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SANTHIRA SEGARAN IYNAN & ANOR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24-101-10/2024]
Judicial review applications must adhere strictly to procedural timelines; ignorance of legal processes is not a valid excuse for delays.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act - Section 20(3) - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 3 rule 5 - Application for judicial review - Extension of time to file application - Applicant did not establish merit for extension; failure to appeal within statutory timeframe is determinant. (Paras 7.1 and 9)
(B) Judicial Review - Procedural non-compliance does not excuse ignorance of law - Discretion of the court to grant or deny extension based on cogent reasons and the interests of justice is paramount. (Paras 10 and 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to apply for judicial review against the Industrial Court's decision on dismissed employee, who claimed unfair dismissal following a domestic inquiry that led to the applicant's decision to terminate employment due to misconduct. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the application for extension of time, ruling ignorance of legal processes insufficient for granting the extension. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether the applicant provided a valid reason for not appealing within the required time, the validity of the applicant's claims concerning the former solicitor's advice. (Items 6.1 and 4.7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized strict adherence to the rules for filing judicial review applications, affirming that ignorance of legal duties does not excuse procedural lapses. (Paras 8 and 10)
Result: Application for extension of time dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction for extending time in judicial review. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. outcome and costs related to the dismissed application. (Para 2) |
| 3. parties' arguments regarding appeal delays. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's rationale on procedural compliance and time limits. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. application of legal principles for granting extensions. (Para 9 , 10) |
(Enclosure 1)
Introduction
[1] In this Originating Summons (OS), the applicant seeks to be granted an abridgement/extension of time (EOT) to file a Judicial Review application against the Industrial Court's decision in Awad No 2087 of 2024, dated 11 October 2023, under O 3 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012), including costs and other reliefs.
[2] On 3 April 2025, after considering all the cause papers and the respective written submissions of the parties, I hold that this OS has no merit, and it is dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid within 30 days from the date of this Order.
2.1 Dissatisfied, the applicant has filed this appeal, and my reasons are as follows:
Brief Facts
[3] The 1st respondent (R1) was employed by the applicant's company as of 7 March 2016, as a supervisor in the Thermal Oil Heater department.
3.1 The applicant alleged, a domestic inquiry conducted against R1:
(1) It was found that R1 was complicit in extorting money from truck drivers contracted to unload the biomass during the period of his employment, unknown to the company.
(2) Following an internal investigation and a domestic inquiry, the applicant decided to dismiss R1 on 10 April 2020, which R1 subsequently claimed as an unfair dismissal.
3.2 R1 brought an official complaint about the alleged unfair dismissal. By a reference dated 8 December 2020, the Minister of Human Resources, under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act ( IRA ), referred this matter to the Industrial Court, and it was registered as Industrial Court Case 4/4-3030/20.
3.3 After a full trial:
(1) The Industrial Court (IC) allowed R1's claim through the Industrial Court Awad No 2087 of 2023 dated 11 October 2023 (the IC Award).
(2) The IC determined that the applicant had failed to prove that R1's dismissal was made in a fair and equitable manner and was ordered to pay R1 a sum of RM61,600.00 (L2: exh BE-1)
The Parties Arguments
[4] I have duly considered the parties' arguments as follows (briefly):
(A) The applicant's arguments:
4.1 The applicant filed this OS under O 3 r 5 RC and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking an abridgement of time to file a JR application for an award No 2087 of 2023 dated 11 October 2023 that had exceeded the three months allowed for JR.
4.2 It was argued that:
(1) They had always intended to appeal against the IC Award but were never advised to do so by the previous solicitor on the procedure for appeal.
(2) The new solicitor, Messrs Jec Siose & Co, which took over the conduct of the matter, is aware that the time for appeal had lapsed and had advised the applicant of the same.
(3) The applicant is only a "layperson" who does not have any knowledge of the legal processes and procedures concerning the application for JR.
Basis of Application
4.3 The learned counsel submitted that the Court has broad jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for applying for judicial review (JR). Citing Jayamary RMS Thomas & Ors v. Anbuselvy Sengol [2016] MLRHU 867, which held that O 3 r 5 RC 2012 is very clear, the Court has the power to extend the time even when the application for an extension of time is made after the relevant period has elapsed.
4.4 It was argued that in matters involving rules of procedure, the Court will as a whole determine the matter on the merits rather than being limited to rules of procedure to prevent the applicant from filing an Application for JR unless the application is without merit and cited Foo Chiew Fong v. Guriman ; followed in Lee Thean Chye v. Lim Chow Chong [1973] 1 MLRH 490; [1973] 2 MLJ 100, where it was said that the accepted principle
