Dato' See Teow Chuan & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Ooi Woon Chee & Ors and other applications – Respondent
| 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) |
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.