Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3972
Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd – Plaintiff
Versus
Panflex Sdn Bhd – Defendant
A court cannot review its own judgments unless expressly allowed by law; the necessity of foundational evidence for granting declaratory relief is critical.
Headnote:(A) Rules of the Federal Court 1995 - Rule 126 and Rule 137 - Jurisdiction of the Federal Court - Application for review of prior judgment denied on grounds of lack of jurisdiction to review its own decisions. The appeal raised significant issues regarding the inability to relitigate matters conclusively decided, and the necessity of evidence for declaratory judgments. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Declaratory relief - Requirement for evidence - Courts are reluctant to grant lack of evidence in support of declaratory relief; significant emphasis placed on the need for evidential support before a declaratory relief is granted. (Paras 74-76)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to recover outstanding payments for construction work and the breach of a supplementary agreement. The court previously dismissed the plaintiff's motion for judgment in default, leading to this application for review.
Findings of Court:
The Federal Court determined that it lacked the jurisdiction to review its previous decision, highlighting that subsequent motions that attempt to relitigate issues already decided are an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the Federal Court has the power to review its own judgment and the necessity of evidential support for declaratory judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that without express provision in law or constitution, the power of review does not exist, emphasizing the need for finality in judicial decisions to maintain stability in legal proceedings.
Result: Application dismissed with costs fixed at RM30,000.
Mohd Ghazali FCJ:
The applicant is Panflex Sdn Bhd (the plaintiff in the originating action) and the respondent is Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd (the second defendant in the originating action). The first defendant in the suit, Gymtech Development Sdn Bhd (‘Gymtech’) has since been wound up and is not a party to this application. We will refer to the parties in this application as they were in the originating action.
By way of motion dated 27 May 2011, the plaintiff moved this court for the following orders:
(a)that leave (if necessary) be given to enlarge time pursuant to r 126 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 (‘the Rules’) to file this application;
(b)that pursuant to r 137 of the Rules leave be given to apply for a review of the decision of the Federal Court given on 19 April 2011 in this matter for the following purposes —
(i)to set aside the decision of this court given on 19 April 2011; and
(ii)to rehear the second defendant’s appeal to this court vide notice of appeal dated 15 November 2010 before a differently constituted panel of this court; or
(iii)to restore and uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 6 October 2010.
This court had in a unanimous decision on 4 October 2011 dismissed the motion on the ground that r 137 of the Rules does not confer jurisdiction on this court to review its own decision. Rule 137 reads:
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.
THE BACKGROUND
The facts surrounding the dispute leading to the filing of the action were as follows:
(a)Gymtech appointed the plaintiff to undertake certain construction works comprising condominiums, apartment blocks and a Club House (‘the said works’) pursuant to a construction contract dated 17 November 1997 for a total value of RM36,321,166.83;
(b)the said works were carried out on a piece of land belonging to the second defendant;
(c)at the end of the day, Gymtech owed the plaintiff the balance sum of RM4,874,939.52 (‘outstanding sum’) for the said works it carried out;
(d)pursuant to a supplementary agreement dated 11 August 2000 between all three parties, the second defendant agreed to partly settle the outstanding sum due to the plaintiff by selling to the plaintiff 14 condominium units at the total value of RM2,913,160;
(e)consequently fourteen sale and purchase agreements were entered into between the second defendant and the plaintiff; the purchase price of the said condominium units were set-off from the outstanding sum and were deemed paid in full by the plaintiff;
(f)the second defendant was obliged to redeem the said condominium units within two years from the date of the supplementary agreement;
(g)in breach of the supplementary agreement, the second defendant failed to settle the redemption sum for the said condominium units and these units could not be transferred to the plaintiff; and
(h)consequently, the supplementary agreement and the sale and purchase agreements were terminated and the plaintiff claimed from the second defendant a refund of the purchase price amounting to RM2,913,160.
The above events led to the plaintiff filing the suit in the Muar High Court on 2 June 2006 against Gymtech for the balance of the outstanding sum amounting to RM1,961,779.51 (RM4,874,939.51 – RM2,913,160) and against the second defendant for a refund of the purchase price of RM2,913,160.
The salient events which occurred after the suit was filed were as follows:
(a)on 20 July 2006, the second defendant entered appearance; it filed its statement of defence only on 18 October 2006;
(b)meanwhile, on 24 August 2006 the plaintiff filed an application (encl 10) to enter judgment in default of defence against the second defendant, praying for the following orders —
(i)a declaration that the supplementary agreement is cancelled or is validly termina
