MOHAMED ARIFIN SHAH BIN NAZEER ALI v 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA MALAYSIA PUTRAJAYA 2. ) TUAN ABDUL RASHID BIN DAUD (Presiden Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna Malaysia)

Case Significance

Illustrates that the mandatory requirements of Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 for a judicial review leave application — a properly filed statement identifying the impugned decision, the relief and the grounds — must be met even by a litigant in person, and that fundamental non-compliance is not curable.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, sitting in its Special Powers Division, concerns an application by a litigant in person for leave to commence judicial review of a decision of the Consumer Claims Tribunal, together with an extension of time. The applicant sought leave under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 to quash the Tribunal's decision of 28 May 2024 as unlawful, ultra vires and contrary to natural justice, an extension of time to bring the application outside the three-month limit under Order 53 rule 3(6), a declaration that the decision was null and void, and damages. At case management the Deputy Registrar directed the applicant to put his papers in order — to re-file the affidavit in support and file the statement required by Order 53 rule 3(2), to serve the papers on the Attorney General's Chambers, and to correct a wrongly named respondent to the proper party.

At the hearing the Federal Counsel raised three objections: that the application was out of time, the impugned decision having been made more than three months earlier; that the applicant had failed to name the proper party as a respondent; and that the application was procedurally irregular for non-compliance with Order 53 rule 3(2). The applicant, explaining that he had approached several lawyers without success, argued that his procedural errors flowed from his status as a litigant in person, were curable under Order 2 of the Rules, and should not bar access to justice.

The court held that the applicant had failed to regularise the application by filing the statement separately and in the proper form — the cause papers had instead been bundled into a supplementary affidavit — and had failed to identify the impugned decision as required. It accepted the Attorney General's objection on the ground of non-compliance with Order 53 rule 3(2), holding these irregularities not curable, and allowed the objection. The judgment illustrates that the mandatory requirements of Order 53 rule 3(2) must be met even by a litigant in person.