SIM FOO YOKE v KETUA PENGARAH PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL

Case Significance

Holds that the sixty-day period in section 91(3) of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 for appealing a Social Security Appellate Board decision is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by the court, so that a grossly delayed appeal must be refused despite the Act's social-legislation character.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for an extension of time to appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appellate Board, and the court's jurisdiction to enlarge a statutory appeal period. The plaintiff, a dependant of a deceased insured person who had died in an industrial accident, sought to appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Social Security Appellate Board that had dismissed her appeal on 4 December 2018. She filed her originating summons only on 28 August 2024 — some five years and eight months after the Board's decision — whereas the governing law required any appeal to be filed within sixty days. The plaintiff advanced grounds said to explain the delay and to justify an extension, and further contended that the intended appeal raised a substantial and unsettled question of law; the defendant urged the Court to dismiss the application, pointing to the absence of any reasonable explanation, the demands of finality, and the prejudice it would suffer in defending a stale claim. The Court held that it did not possess the jurisdiction to enlarge the sixty-day time period prescribed by section 91(3) of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969. Having resolved that anterior question against the plaintiff, it considered that any view on the substantive merits of the intended appeal was inconsequential. The Court emphasised that, while the Act is undoubtedly a piece of social legislation, public policy requires contributors to comply with the statutory requirements, so as not to compel the Social Security Organisation and the Board to defend appeals brought years after a decision, undermining finality and procedural fairness. Considering the overall circumstances, it made no order as to costs. The decision illustrates that a statutory appeal period may be treated as jurisdictional and beyond the court's power to extend.