1. ) SHINY RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 2. ) PRISTANA HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) MASTER EXPRESS TRAVELS & TOURS SDN. BHD. 4. ) G.B. RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 5. ) VILLA CERIA SDN. BHD. 6. ) PUNCAK PURNAMA SDN. BHD. 7. ) SEWANG MURNI SDN. BHD. 8. ) KIMIX CONCRETE SDN. BHD. 9. ) DARULVEST SDN. BHD. 10. ) SEGAMAN MAKMUR SDN.BHD. 11. ) LEE CHIT WAI 12. ) ONG PENG LIAN 13. ) ONG YING MI (Sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Ong Leong Kheng, simati) 14. ) ZESTRA INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 15. ) BENUA MUHIBAH SDN. BHD. 16. ) PRIDE...

Case Significance

Illustrates the leave stage as a real filter in judicial review: applicants must be persons adversely affected by an actual, in-time decision and must give full and frank disclosure; standing failed where applicants were not addressed by, or not yet subject to, the impugned rejection, and leave was refused.

This High Court decision concerns an application for leave to commence judicial review challenging a public authority's decision to reject applications for the alienation of State land. The applicants were a large group comprising numerous companies and several individuals; the corporate applicants included Shiny Resources Sdn. Bhd., Pristana Holdings Sdn. Bhd. and Master Express Travels & Tours Sdn. Bhd., among others, while the individual applicants are referred to here by role. The Attorney General, appearing for the respondents, objected to the grant of leave on a series of threshold grounds, and the case is a useful illustration of how standing and procedural preconditions are policed at the leave stage.

The Attorney General's objections were directed at both the standing of particular applicants and the regularity of the application itself. It was said that one applicant lacked locus standi because she was neither a temporary-occupation-licence (TOL) holder nor an applicant for alienation of the lands; that several corporate applicants lacked standing because they were “not aggrieved by the Rejection Letters”, which had not been addressed to them; and that another applicant lacked standing because its own application for alienation “was still in consideration and had not been rejected”, so that there was as yet no decision to review. Beyond standing, it was objected that the application had been “filed outside the prescribed time frame” and was “vexatious and frivolous”, the applicants having failed to make full and frank disclosure, with no proper grounds to challenge the notices and a flawed claim for mandamus.

The court accepted these objections. The Attorney General's objections “were allowed and the Applicants' application for leave was dismissed.” Leave was therefore refused at the threshold, without the substantive challenge proceeding.

The judgment underscores that the leave stage in judicial review is a genuine filter: an applicant must show that it is a person adversely affected by an actual decision, must move within time, and must come with full and frank disclosure. A party not addressed by, or not yet the subject of, an impugned decision will lack the standing needed to obtain leave.