JUDGMENT

Low Hop Bing J:

Application

[1] Before me are two substantive notices of motion filed respectively by the applicants for the purpose of seeking judicial review by way of certiorari under O. 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 to quash the awards handed down by the first respondent, the Consumer Claims Tribunal ("the tribunal") on 25 January 2005.

[2] The applicants relied on the common ground inter alia that the awards are beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore ultra vires.

[3] Although the value of the subject matter is in the miniscule sum of RM98 in each application, the issue raised for my consideration is of immense importance and far-reaching implications. It concerns public interest and affects every spectrum of the telecommunication consumers nationwide.

Factual Background

[4] The facts in both the applications are substantially similar and so a reference to the second respondent herein is a reference respectively to the second respondent in both the applications.

[5] The tribunal was established under s. 85 of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 ("the CPA 1999") for the purpose of hearing claims for any loss suffered on any matter concerning the consumer's interest. The jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject to certain limitations prescribed under the CPA 1999.

[6] The matter before the tribunal originated from two RM98 bills delivered by the applicant to the second respondent respectively in relation to international calls said to be made by the second respondent to Papua New Guinea.

[7] The second respondent disputed the bill and filed a claim with the tribunal on the ground that the second respondent had not made the international calls, but had only used the Internet Service, and that an international call was generated by the Internet Service without his consent.

[8] The applicant at the direction of the tribunal launched a comprehensive investigation and produced a report which basically illustrated that the telecommunication lines and the telecommunication boxes connected to the second respondent's telephone were in good working order.

[9] The applicant also investigated the Internet Service Provider, TMNET Sdn Bhd which is a legal entity separate and distinct from the applicant, and which provides a different service to the second respondent as a subscriber specifically for a "dial-up Internet connection" ie, the TMNET 1515 service.

[10] The report and the bills of both the Internet Service Provider and the Telecommunications Service Provider showed that at the time the calls were charged, the second respondent was accessing the internet when a dialer downloaded to the second respondent's computer which resulted in the making of international calls. The second respondent did not dispute the existence of these Internet and Telecommunications services.

[11] The tribunal found in favour of the second respondent on grounds of wire-tapping from an unidentified person who had made the international calls while the second respondent was surfing the internet and the second respondent's computer was hacked.

Governing Principles

[12] At this juncture, it is appropriate for me to set out the principles governing the grounds for sustaining a substantive notice of motion to challenge a decision-making process by way of certiorari, as follows:

(1) It is neither an appeal nor a review of the decision itself, but a review of the decision-making process of the tribunal to see if there are errors of law on the face of the record;

(2) It is neither feasible nor desirable to attempt an exhaustive definition of what amounts to an error of law, for the categories of such an error are not closed;

and an error may be disclosed if the decision-maker eg:

(a) asks himself the wrong question;

(b) takes into account irrelevant considerations;

(c) omits to take into account certain relevant considerations (an Anisminic error);

(d) misconstrues the terms of the relevant statute; or

(e) misapplies or misstates a principle