Farah Irina binti Khairi Izwan

On the court record

Farah Irina binti Khairi Izwan appears in the corpus in employment and regulatory litigation argued in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). Two related appeals, appearing for the respondent, arose from claims of wrongful dismissal against an industrial employer and raised a question of considerable procedural importance: the correct mode of challenging an award of the Industrial Court — whether the proper route is by way of judicial review or by an appeal to the High Court. The appeals engaged sections 20(2) and 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 together with the amendments introduced by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020, in particular sections 33C and 35, which reshaped the avenue for challenging Industrial Court awards. The point matters because the choice between judicial review and a statutory appeal governs both the scope of the court's scrutiny and the time within which relief must be sought, and the transitional interaction between the old supervisory route and the new appellate one has been a recurring source of dispute since the 2020 amendments. A third appeal, appearing for the appellant, was an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which asked whether there was a prima facie case of error warranting a second appeal; the underlying dispute engaged the Medical Device Act 2012 and the Medical Act 1971 and questions of public policy and illegality under sections 24 and 66 of the Contracts Act 1950. A feature common to all three appeals is that the substantive merits are reached only after a threshold question about access to the court has been resolved — whether the challenge lies in judicial review or in a statutory appeal, and whether leave to bring a further appeal should be granted at all. Across the appearances the practice combines employment and industrial-relations law with regulatory and contractual disputes, and shows a particular concern with the appellate and supervisory machinery — the correct forum, the leave threshold, and the standard for interfering on a further appeal.