RUDDY HASMAWIE BIN MOHAMAD v PERTUBUHAN PELADANG KEBANGSAAN

Case Significance

Confirms that the three-month limit in Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 is strictly applied, and that neither ignorance of the law nor an unparticularised difficulty in retaining counsel amounts to a good reason for extending time to seek judicial review.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for leave to commence judicial review of an employer's decision dismissing the applicant from employment, and, as a threshold matter, an application to extend time because the judicial review had been filed out of time. The court addressed the extension of time first, since the substantive leave application could not proceed unless the delay was excused.

The procedural framework is Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. Order 53 rule 3(6) requires that an application for judicial review be made promptly and, in any event, within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision was first communicated to the applicant. The court referred to the Court of Appeal's guidance in Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang v Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd on how the three-month period runs and on the decision-maker's obligation to make and then communicate its decision, that communication being an integral part of the decision-making process.

The applicant offered two justifications for the delay: ignorance of the law, and the time needed to find and appoint a lawyer to take on the case. The court rejected both. On the first, it followed its own earlier decision in Yuslie bin Mohd Yusop v Pertubuhan Peladang Kebangsaan that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. On the second, it found that the applicant had given no particulars of the delay in appointing a lawyer, no date of appointment, no letter of appointment, and no evidence to substantiate the claim, so that the delay had not been explained in the detail required. Concluding that no good reason had been shown, the court refused the extension of time, which was fatal to the leave application. The judgment is a clear reminder that the three-month limit in Order 53 is strictly enforced and that a bare assertion of ignorance or of difficulty in retaining counsel, unsupported by evidence, will not secure an extension.