1. ) TAN THUN YANG 2. ) YAP SHWU BING 3. ) YAP THYE TI 4. ) TAN HOCK HENG 5. ) LIM CHOON WEI 6. ) MOHD FAIZRUS ANWAR BIN ROSLAN 7. ) NUR AZERA BINTI TUHAIME 8. ) NG KAR KEN 9. ) CHIN SIT YEE 10. ) KOH TECK LIANG 11. ) PER BEE GEE 12. ) HUI KUET TEANG 13. ) LOW YI FAN 14. ) TAN YI YING 15. ) TANG HON LEONG 16. ) CHAN PUI YIN 17. ) CHANG E-LAINE 18. ) TAN KIM YUAN 19. ) LIM CHOON SIANG 20. ) CHIA SIN WEI 21. ) MOO HUOY YI 22. ) MOO SHWU YI 23. ) JEFFERSON KONG KHA SENG 24. ) LOW SHIN YI 25. ) T...

Case Significance

Applies the strict three-month limit and the mandatory extension-of-time requirement under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, holding that an out-of-time judicial-review leave application without an extension request must be dismissed regardless of merits.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for leave to apply for judicial review, brought by a group of condominium purchasers, that was refused as filed out of time. The purchasers sought to challenge decisions of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government relating to their housing development, including a decision to extend the statutory time for delivery of vacant possession from thirty-six to fifty-four months, and decisions granting exemptions in the computation of that period, made in the wake of the temporary measures enacted to address the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The leave application under Order 53 rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 was strongly opposed by the Attorney General's Chambers on the grounds that it was filed out of time and was an abuse of the process of the court.

Order 53 rule 3 requires an application for leave for judicial review to be made promptly and within three months of the date when the grounds first arose or the decision was first communicated to the applicant. The court examined when the impugned decisions had been communicated and found that the application was out of time. Critically, the applicants had not applied for, or incorporated a request for, an extension of time under Order 53 rule 3(7) and (8) to pursue their application.

The court applied the established principle that where a statute or the rules create an explicit procedure and time limit, all applications must adhere to it, failing which they are barred by time and liable to be struck out as an abuse of process, and that once the explanation for delay is rejected, the court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the leave application irrespective of the merits. Finding the application out of time, unsupported by any extension, and lacking merit, the court dismissed it with no order as to costs. The judgment is a clear application of the strict three-month limit and the extension-of-time requirement under Order 53 for judicial review.