Gopal Sri Ram FCJ:

[1] These are two applications for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which (by a majority) dismissed the applicants' appeal to it. Ordinarily this Court does not give reasons when allowing or dismissing applications of this nature. This is encapsulated in the following observation by Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ in Datuk Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed & Anor v. The Board of Trustees of the Sabah Foundation, [1998] 2 MLJ 137, 330:-

It is not the practice of this Court, nor as we understand it, the practice of the House of Lords, when sitting in its judicial capacity hearing application for leave to appeal, to give explicit reasons for granting or refusing leave, save in circumstances where their Lordships considered that they had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

But there are some cases in which this has been done. See, for example, Beatrice Fernandez v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & Anor, [2004] 4 MLJ 466; Allied Capital Sdn Bhd v. Mohamed Latiff Shah Mohd & Another Applicatio; [2001] 2 MLJ 305; [2001] 2 CLJ 253; [2001] 2 AMR 2097. We consider this an appropriate case to give reasons because it raises an issue of construction of cer