Ramly Ali J:

[1] The present appeal is against the decision of the learned High Court Judge on 10 October 2007 dismissing the appellant's amended originating summons on the ground that the appellant by commencing proceedings by way of originating summons, had failed to comply with the provisions of O. 53 of the Rules of the High 1980 .

[2] The events leading to this appeal may be summed up as follows:

(a) the appellant had on 20 February 1995 obtained her "Bachelor of Laws Degree with Third Class Honours" from Wolverhampton University, United Kingdom. After that she had undergone the Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice course at the University of Western Australia and obtained the relevant certificate on 21 April 1999;

(b) the appellant first wrote to the respondent (Legal Profession Qualifying Board Malaysia) on 8 September 1999 with regard to the question of whether she was a "qualified person" as defined under the LPA or otherwise;

(c) the Director of the respondent, one Encik Khalid bin Yusof informed the appellant that she was not a "qualified person" as defined under the LPA by way of a letter dated 26 October 1999;

(d) by a letter dated 20 December 1999, the appellant appealed to the respondent to re-determine her position in light of certain fresh supporting documents she had obtained;

(e) on 20 March 2000, the appellant wrote to the respondent:

(i) demanding a reply from the respondent within 14 days as regards the question of whether she was a "qualified person" as defined under the LPA or otherwise; and

(ii) the appellant informed the respondent that she might go to Court to seek a declaration in the event that the respondent should decide that she was not a "qualified person" as defined under the LPA;

(f) the respondent did not reply to either the appellant's letter dated 20 December 1999 or the appellant's letter dated 20 March 2000;

(g) the appellant wrote again a letter on 18 October 2005 appealing to the respondent to consider the same question of whether she was a "qualified person" as defined under the LPA;

(h) on 2 March 2006, a meeting was held between the appellant's husband, Mr. E. Yawanarajah and Dato' Noraini Abdul Rahman, the then Director of Examination for the Certificate of Legal Practice as regards the appellant's status;

(i) on 6 March 2006, the appellant wrote again to the respondent on the same issue and sought a reply from the respondent as regard her status; and

(j) by a letter dated 7 April 2006, the respondent informed the appellant that the respondent had on 28 March 2006 decided to reject the appellant's application.

[3] In the amended OS, the appellant sought the following reliefs against the respondent:

(a) an order that the respondent's decision dated 28 March 2006 be set aside.

(b) the appellant be declared a "qualified person" as defined under s. 3 LPA ; and

(c) the appellant be given leave to attend as a pupil to any person qualified to be her master for a period of nine months under s. 12 LPA .

[4] On 10 October 2007, the High Court Judge dismissed the appellant's amended originating summons on the ground that the appellant, by commencing proceedings by way of originating summons, had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of O. 53 Rules of the High 1980 . Hence the present appeal.

[5] The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the process initiated by the appellant by way of originating summons in the present case is correct and the learned High Court Judge should not have dismissed the appellant's application on the ground that the appellant had initiated the proceedings by way of a wrong process.

[6] The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the appellant's application is in actual fact for judicial review, for certiorari ; therefore the process must be way of specific format (Form 111A) under O. 53 of the Rules of the High 1980 , not by way of originating summons.

[7] The learned High Court Judge in his judgment appears to have agreed with the re