2026 MarsdenLR 387

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH
ROSLAN MAT NOR, J
GM AERO SUPPORT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG & YANG LAIN – Respondent
[Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman No: CB-25-4-03/2024]

The threshold for leave for judicial review is low; the application must not be frivolous or vexatious and must disclose an arguable case. The existence of a statutory power of disposal under Section 42 of the National Land Code does not oust the court's jurisdiction to review the decision.

Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Sections 42, 136(1)(c)(ii), 136(1)(h), 138(3) - Judicial Review - Leave for judicial review - Test for leave - Threshold at leave stage is low - Application for leave shall not be refused unless frivolous, vexatious, or hopeless - Key legal principle: For leave to be granted, the court must be satisfied that the application is not frivolous and that there is an arguable case to be tried; the mere existence of a statutory power of disposal under Section 42 does not oust the jurisdiction of the court to review the decision.

(B) Judicial Review - Leave stage - Scope of court's inquiry - Court is to consider whether the grounds for review are frivolous or vexatious, or whether there is an arguable case on the merits; it is not to determine the merits of the case at the leave stage.

(C) Limitation - Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Time limit for application for judicial review - Application for leave must be made within three months from the date when the grounds for the application first arose or when the decision was first communicated to the applicant - Court may extend time if it considers there is good reason; delay in proceedings is regrettable and should be avoided.

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought leave for judicial review of decisions of the first, second, and third respondents (the State Director, the Land Administrator, and the State Authority) approving the alienation of several parcels of land (the Genting main access road lands) to the fifth respondent. The applicant owned land adjacent to the fifth respondent’s land. The applicant claimed that the respondents’ decisions to issue titles to the fifth respondent were made without taking into account that the applicant had obtained planning permission from the relevant local authority and despite the applicant’s objections. The applicant stated that he first learned of the titles on 11 July 2023. The applicant claimed that the decisions were unreasonable, irrational, and contrary to the National Land Code 1965. The application for leave was filed on 9 October 2023. The fifth respondent raised a preliminary objection (KM 24) that the application was out of time.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the threshold for leave was low and that the applicant had met it. The court held that the decisions were not an absolute power and were subject to review to ensure compliance with the law. The court found that the application was not frivolous or vexatious and that an arguable case existed. The court also found that the applicant was a person ‘adversely affected’ by the decisions. Regarding the time limit, the court found that the applicant was first informed of the decisions on 11 July 2023, and the application was filed on 9 October 2023, within the three-month period. Therefore, the preliminary objection was dismissed. The court also allowed the applicant’s application to amend the leave application (KM 131) to include additional documents (B106 and B108) obtained in related civil proceedings.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant had met the threshold for leave for judicial review, whether the application was out of time, and whether the applicant should be permitted to amend the leave application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the threshold for leave at the initial stage is low and requires only that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is an arguable case to be tried. The mere conferment of a power of disposal under Section 42 of the National Land Code does not render the decision of the state authority immune from judicial review. An applicant who is ‘adversely affected’ by a decision has standing to seek review. The three-month time limit for filing an application for judicial review runs from the date of communication of the decision to the applicant. Result : Leave for judicial review granted with costs in the cause; KM 24 (preliminary objection) dismissed with no order as to costs; KM 131 (application to amend) allowed with costs in the cause.