TIRAM TRAVEL SDN. BHD. v 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) NOORHIDAYAH BT RAMLI

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited scope for judicial review of a Consumer Claims Tribunal award under Order 53: an unhappy trader cannot use certiorari as an appeal on the merits, and where the Tribunal's finding of a downgraded service and its quantification of the award are rationally open on the evidence, the court will not intervene.

This High Court decision at Ipoh concerns judicial review of an award made by the Consumer Claims Tribunal (Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna). The applicant, a travel agency offering Umrah and pilgrimage packages, sought a declaration and an order of certiorari under Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 to quash an award of the Tribunal dated 29 April 2024, by which the Tribunal had ordered the agency to pay a consumer RM7,200 together with RM1,500 in costs within thirty days. The consumer had booked an Umrah package with the agency, and her complaint was that the package she received had been downgraded from what she had contracted for. The questions on the judicial review were whether there had in fact been a downgrade in the package provided by the agency, and whether the quantum of the award decided by the Tribunal was reasonable. On a judicial review of a tribunal award, the court is concerned with the legality and rationality of the decision rather than substituting its own view of the merits, and a tribunal's findings on the facts and its assessment of an appropriate award are entitled to respect where they are supported by the material before it. The court found that the applicant's challenge was without merit and dismissed the application, ordering the applicant to pay costs of RM2,000 to the consumer. The judgment is a useful illustration of the limited scope for judicial review of a Consumer Claims Tribunal award: an unhappy trader cannot use certiorari as an appeal on the merits, and where the Tribunal's finding of a downgraded service and its quantification of the award are rationally open on the evidence, the court will not intervene. The decision reinforces that the Consumer Claims Tribunal exists to give consumers a swift and inexpensive remedy, and that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court will not be used to unpick a modest award on the facts where no error of law or want of jurisdiction is shown.