Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5848
Dato' See Teow Chuan & Ors – Plaintiff
Versus
Ooi Woon Chee & Ors and other applications – Defendant
The court maintains inherent review powers under Rule 137 for exceptional cases to correct injustices but substantial copying does not alone equate to bias.
Headnote:(A) Federal Court Rules 1995 - Rule 137 - Jurisdiction of Federal Court to review its own decisions - The inherent jurisdiction exists to correct injustice and prevent abuse of process, exercised only in rare cases - Courts of law must maintain integrity and prevent misapplication of their processes. (Paras 3, 10, 11)
(B) Bias - Actual and apparent bias - Substantial copying from counsel's submissions raises concerns about judicial integrity without necessarily implying bias - Appellants failed to substantiate a claim of bias against the court's judgment. (Paras 34, 39)
(C) Questions of law - Courts have discretion to answer or refrain from answering all framed legal questions in an appeal - Legal process allows non-answering if deemed unnecessary for resolution. (Paras 42, 45)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to set aside a previous judgment and review the matter on several grounds, primarily alleging bias due to substantial copying of arguments by the judges from the respondents' counsel, implying the judges did not exercise independent judgment.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the applications for review, emphasizing that while copying from submissions is discouraged, it did not establish bias in this instance.
Issues: The key issues were the existence of inherent jurisdiction for review under Rule 137, allegations of bias through substantial copying, and the scope of questions of law that require answering by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that inherent jurisdiction exists but is limited and must not be abused. It also ruled that substantial copying alone does not suffice to demonstrate bias; there must be demonstrable evidence.
Result: Motions dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of motions for review of decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. jurisdiction of the court under r 137 explored. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. distinction between inherent and statutory jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 , 18) |
| 4. inherent powers of the court to prevent injustice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. allegations of plagiarism in judgment raised. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. judicial analysis of alleged plagiarism cases. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
Arifin Zakaria Chief Justice (delivering judgment of the court):
INTRODUCTION
[1]The applicants filed four notices of motion pursuant to r 137 of the Rules [2013] 4 MLJ 351 at 357of the Federal Court 1995 ('r 137') and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court ('inherent jurisdiction') to review and set aside the decision of the Federal Court dated 5 January 2012, which allowed the respondents' appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 24 June 2010. The applicants also applied for several consequential orders, other reliefs and costs.
[2]The notices of motion are in encl 27(a) ('the first application') and encl�30(a) ('the second application') in Civil Appeal No 02()–11 of 2011(W) and in encl 20(a) ('the third application') and encl 22(a) ('the fourth application') in Civil Appeal No 02()–12 of 2011(W). They were supported by affidavits of Dato' See Teow Chuan in encl 27(b) and See Tiau Kee in encl 30(b) in Civil Appeal No 02()–11 of 2011(W) and affidavits of Dato' See Teow Chuan in encl 20(b) and See Tiau Kee in encl 22(b) in Civil Appeal No 02–12 of 2011(W).
JURISDICTION UNDER R 137 AND/OR THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
[3]First, let us consider the jurisdictional issue. These applications were made pursuant to r 137 which provides:
r 137 Inherent powers of the Court.
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.
[4]There are conflicting decisions of this court on the issue whether this court has the power, be it inherent or as conferred by r 137, to review its own decision. It is hoped that this case will put that issue to rest for good. The respondents in the present case did not seriously challenge the jurisdiction of this court to review its earlier decision, however, they contended that the jurisdiction is very restrictive and is only exercisable in rare and exceptional cases, in order to prevent any injustice arising out of procedural failure.
[5]Except in two instances, this court had consistently held that it possesses such inherent or intrinsic jurisdiction. The divergent view is found in Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd v Panflex Sdn Bhd [2012] 2 MLJ 168court has no such jurisdiction or power, for the reason that neither the Federal Constitution nor the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 confers such jurisdiction or power on this court, and r 137, being a subsidiary legislation, could not confer such jurisdiction or power on this court. This court, in Amalan Tepat, followed the minority view in the case of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [2010] 6 MLJ 533[2010] 7 CLJ 397.
[2013] 4 MLJ 351 at 358
[6]The opposite view is found in Sia Cheng Soon & Anor v Tengku Ismail bin Tengku Ibrahim [2008] 5 CLJ 201, there it was said that r 137 does not confer such jurisdiction, it merely declares that this court being a court of law, by necessary implication is conferred with such inherent power, and this inherent power which is derived from the court's inherent jurisdiction must be distinguished from the jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or by statute (statutory jurisdiction).
[7]Similar view was echoed by Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ (as he then was) in Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim. In that case, he drew a distinction between statutory and inherent jurisdiction, where he said:
The source of the statutory jurisdiction of the court is the statute itself wh
