EVERGREEN FUTURE HOME BUILDERS v 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) JAI BHAVANI

Case Significance

Illustrates the strict enforcement of the three-month limit in Order 53 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 for judicial review leave applications, and confirms that an extension of time requires a properly supported application showing good reason.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for leave to commence judicial review, coupled with a request for an extension of time to bring that application. The applicant, Evergreen Future Home Builders, a renovation contractor, had carried out works at a property in Puchong for the second respondent under a contract priced at RM107,600.00. A dispute arose over roughly RM42,260.00 in additional works that the applicant said it had performed but for which it was not paid. Rather than sue in the ordinary way, the second respondent brought a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal (Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna), which on 15 October 2024 awarded RM29,442.00 against the applicant. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal the same day but later withdrew it, then sought leave for judicial review to quash the Tribunal's decision and to compel payment of the additional sum, together with damages.

The central obstacle was timing. Under Order 53 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012, an application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made within three months of the decision complained of, and the court retains a discretion to extend time only where good reason is shown. The court noted that at the leave stage the proceedings are ex parte, so that only the applicant and the Attorney General are ordinarily heard, and the putative respondent has no voice save with leave of court. On the facts the time to file had expired on 14 January 2025, yet the application was not filed until 17 April 2025 — some 93 days out of time. The applicant's explanation, that it had been pursuing the appeal it later abandoned, was not accepted as sufficient. The court held that an extension cannot be granted without an application supported by good reasons, allowed the Attorney General's objection, and dismissed the application with costs. The judgment illustrates how strictly the three-month limit in Order 53 is enforced even though the threshold for granting leave is otherwise low.