Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Inherent powers of Federal Court - Power to review own decision - Limits of such power - Whether such power limited to only reviewing Federal Court's own decision - Whether such power applicable to review decision of other courts - Whether such power applicable to review Federal Court's discretion not to grant leave

Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Inherent powers of Federal Court - Review sought of Federal Court's refusal to grant leave - Allegation of bias made against Court of Appeal judge - Such allegation not made to Federal Court judges hearing leave application - Whether Federal Court could entertain review of own decision not to grant leave on basis of such bias - Whether issue of bias properly made to Federal Court - Whether Federal Court ought to entertain allegation of bias by judge of another court

The High Court had decided a claim against the applicants. The applicants' subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. The applicants filed a leave application to the Federal Court and then filed a review application to the Court of Appeal praying for the judgment of the Court of Appeal to be reviewed. The applicants subsequently applied to the Federal Court to adjourn the leave application pending hearing of the review application in the Court of Appeal. The Federal Court refused to adjourn the leave application and subsequently dismissed it. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the review application. The applicants applied to the Federal Court under s 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and/or r 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 ("r 137") to inter alia: (i) review the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the applicants' appeal; and (ii) review the Federal Court's refusal to grant an adjournment of the leave application pending the hearing of the review application, and the consequent dismissal of the leave application.

Held, dismissing the application with costs:

(1) The Federal Court has the jurisdiction to review its own decision in order to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the court under r 137. However, it has no jurisdiction to review decisions of other courts including the Court of Appeal under r 137. (paras 15-16)

(2) In the instant case, the review application was an incompetent application ab initio. The Court of Appeal was not the apex court in the instant case. There was therefore no basis in law for the applicants to complain that the Federal Court erred in not allowing an adjournment of the leave application pending the disposal of the review application in the Court of Appeal. (paras 17-18)

(3) The grant or refusal of an adjournment was entirely an exercise of discretion by the judges who heard the leave application. It was not a matter within the ambit of r 137. Granting the adjournment due to the pending review application would have been an exercise in futility. (paras 21-22)

(4) The applicants had made an allegation of bias against a particular Court of Appeal judge at the hearing of their review application in the Court of Appeal. However, they failed to raise this allegation of bias before the judges who heard the leave application. This allegation of bias should have been raised at the earliest opportunity available instead of being raised at the review stage. The applicants could not now say that the leave application ought to be impugned on the grounds of bias. There was no allegation of bias against the decision to dismiss the leave application or against any of the judges who heard the leave application. (paras 26-30)

(5) The jurisdiction of the Federal Court under r 137 is limited to reviewing its own decisions. The basis to do so is very stringent. Since in the instant application there was no allegation of bias or any reason to impugn the decision of the Federal Court in dismissing the leave application, there was thus no basis to invoke the power under r 137. The instant application failed to meet the threshold requirement for r 137. (paras 31 & 33)

Case(s) referred to:

Abdol Mulok Awang Damit v. Perdana Industri Holdings Bhd [2003] 1 MLRA 401; [2012] 2 MLJ 429; [2003] 3 CLJ 497 (refd)

Dato' Abu Hasan Sarif v. Dato' Dr Abd Isa Ismail [2012] 1 MLRA 565; [2012] 2 CLJ 649 (refd)

Dato' See Teow Chuan & Ors v. Ooi Woon Chee & Ors And Another Application [2013] 5 MLRA 1; [2013] 4 MLJ 351; [2012] 2 CLJ 501 (refd)

David Wong Hon Leong v. Noorazman Adnan [1995] 1 MLRA 708; [1995] 4 CLJ 155 (refd)

Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd; Tan Sri Halim Saad & Che Abdul Daim Hj Zainuddin (Interveners) [2007] 1 MLRA 719; [2007] 5 MLJ 501; [2007] 4 CLJ 725 (refd)

Sharikat Galian Razak Sdn Bhd lwn. Magical Capital Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 MLRA 165; [2013] 9 CLJ 141 (refd)

Tradium Sdn Bhd v. Zain Azahari Zainal Abidin & Anor [1995] 2 MLRA 304; [1995] 1 MLJ 668; [1996] 2 CLJ 270 (refd)

Yoong Sze Fatt v. Pengkalen Securities Sdn Bhd [2009] 3 MLRA 112; [2011] 4 MLJ 805; [2010] 1 CLJ 484 (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss 87, 96

Rules of the Federal Court 1995, r 137

Counsel:

For the applicants: Malik Imtias Sarwar (Gobind Singh Deo, Tan Jee Tjun & Pavendeep Singh with him); M/s Thomas Philip

For the respondent: K Kirubakaran (Max Yong & S Malar with him); M/s Kiru & Yong