What is the inherent power of the Federal Court under Rule 137?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Federal Court’s inherent power under Rule 137 allows it to review its own decision only in rare and exceptional circumstances.

Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 gives the Federal Court the inherent power to review its own decision. This power is exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and a party seeking review must show the case fits strict criteria and that the error is so obvious that it caused injustice to that party.
It is limited to rare and exceptional circumstances
In the Federal Court’s discussion of Rule 137, the power to review its own decision is described as one that is used only in rare and exceptional circumstances. In practical terms, review is not treated as a routine second look at a concluded matter.
Success requires stringent criteria and an obvious error causing injustice
To succeed under Rule 137, the applicant must show the case falls within stringent criteria identified in the Asean Security Paper Mills case. The error must also be so obvious that it resulted in injustice to the party.
Broad review categories include quorum, hearing on merits, and fraud or suppression
The Asean Security Paper Mills decision sets out broad categories that permit review, including lack of quorum, such as when a court was not duly constituted because two of three presiding judges had retired (as illustrated in Chia Yan Tek v Ng Swee Kiat). It also includes denial of the right to have an appeal heard on merits (as in Megat Najmuddin v Bank Bumiputra), and situations where a decision was obtained by fraud or suppression of material evidence (as in MGG Pillai v Vincent Tan Chee Yioun).
Other categories include improper constitution, clear legal infringement, and corrupted process
The categories further include decisions made by a court that was not properly constituted, was illegal, or lacked jurisdiction (as in Allied Capital v Mohd Latiff), and clear infringement of the law (as in Adorna Properties v Kobchai Sosothikul). The framework also covers cases where an applicant was not heard yet an order was inadvertently made as if the applicant had been heard (as in Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v Sukhraj Rai), established bias (as in Taylor v Lawrence), and situations where the integrity of the earlier decision was critically undermined by a corrupted process (as in Re Uddin).

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What is the inherent power of the Federal Court under Rule 137?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends