Arifin Zakaria Chief Justice (delivering judgment of the court):

THE QUESTIONS/ISSUES POSED TO THE FEDERAL COURT

[1]This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal made on the 12 January 2012 in affirming the High Court’s decision given on the 24 August 2011. The appeal arose from the High Court’s decision in refusing the appellant’s (the applicant in the High Court) application for an extension of time to file Form 111B as required under O 53 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (‘the RHC’). On the 19 April 2012, leave to appeal to the Federal Court was granted to the appellant on the following two questions:

(a)whether a delay in filing the notice of hearing of application for judicial review (Form 111B) pursuant to O 53 r 4 of the RHC is fatal to hearing an application for judicial review when:

(i)all relevant parties had been previously served with all cause papers;

(ii)all relevant parties were present and participated in the hearing for leave pursuant to O 53 r 3 of the RHC; and

(iii)the date of hearing of the application for judicial review was fixed in the presence of and with the consent of all parties concerned; and,

(b)Whether the fact that leave was objected to and argued inter partes by all parties, with all documents served on the parties and the hearing of the application for judicial review fixed in the presence of all parties constitutes an estoppel on the respondents to object to the late or even non-filing of a Form 111B.

[2]This court had on the 4 March 2013 unanimously answered the first question in the negative and we now give our reasons for the same.

THE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE

[3]The appellant in the present appeal filed an ex parte application for judicial review under O 53 r 3(2) of the RHC which arose and resulted from the following facts.

[4]The appellant is the National Union of Bank Employees which also represents the non-executive employees employed by Maybank pursuant to the 16th collective agreement (article 6) dated 10 August 2010 entered into between the appellant and the Malayan Commercial Bank’s Association (‘MCBA’), in which Maybank is a member. On the 3 January 2011, the first respondent, who is the Director General of Trade Union (‘DGTU’), registered another union, which is an in-house union, known as ‘Mayneu’ with similar function as the appellant, representing Maybank’s non-executive employees without consulting and seeking the view of the appellant. Mayneu is the second respondent in the present appeal.

[5]By a letter of appeal dated 28 January 2011, the appellant wrote to the Human Resource Minister to review and cancel the registration of Mayneu pursuant to s 71ATrade Unions Act 1959

THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT

[6]At the hearing of the application for leave for judicial review on 27 April 2011, the representatives from the Attorney General’s Chambers and counsel for the second respondent were present and both objected to the said application. Leave was however granted by the learned High Court judge on 13 May 2011. Order 53 r 4(1) of the RHC requires the appellant to file a notice in Form 111B within 14 days from the date when leave was granted. In the present case, the period of 14 days for filing Form 111B fell on 27 May 2011. Form 111B was only filed by the appellant on 24 June 2011 ie 42 days after leave was granted.

[7]As the filing of Form 111B was made beyond the prescribed time, the appellant then filed an application for extension of time to file the same through summons in chambers dated 21 July 2011. The application was refused by the learned High Court judge. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

[8]The issue before the High Court was whether it ought to grant the extension of time to file Form 111B as applied for by the appellant. In the learned High Court judge’s decision delivered on the 24 August 2011, he was of the view that the 14 days period for the appellant to file in Form 111B as required under O 53 r 4(1) of the RHC is not a mere