When does the Federal Court have inherent power to review its own decisions?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Federal Court Possesses Inherent Power to Review Its Own Decisions Under Specific and Exceptional Circumstances

The Federal Court of Malaysia holds an inherent power to review its own judgments, as stipulated under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995. This extraordinary power, however, is not exercised routinely but is reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances. For a review application to succeed, it must demonstrably meet stringent criteria, proving not only that the case falls within established categories for review but also that an obvious error occurred, leading to a miscarriage of justice for the affected party.
Circumstances Allowing for Review Under Rule 137

The landmark Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd $$2008$$ case, referenced in the Golden Star & Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Ors $$2021$$ judgment, outlines broad categories where a review may be permissible. These include situations where there was a lack of quorum, meaning the court was not duly constituted, or where an applicant was denied the right to have their appeal heard on its merits. Additionally, decisions obtained through fraud or the suppression of material evidence, or where the deciding court was improperly constituted, lacked jurisdiction, or acted illegally, may be grounds for review.
Establishing Critical Undermining of Previous Decisions

Further grounds for review, as identified through various judicial pronouncements, encompass instances of clear infringement of the law, or where bias has been demonstrably established against the court. A critical aspect for a successful review is demonstrating that the integrity of the earlier decision has been fundamentally undermined. This could manifest through a corrupted judicial process or the arrival at a demonstrably wrong outcome, as suggested by English case law such as Re Uddin (a child) (serious injury: standard of proof) $$2005$$.
Procedural Injustice and Finality in Litigation

The application of Rule 137 is generally confined to situations where a procedural injustice has occurred, as highlighted in the context of the Nomalan a/l Ramayah v Public Prosecutor $$2026$$ and Mohd Helmi Anuar bin Mohd Kassim v Public Prosecutor $$2026$$ cases, which saw a notable increase in such applications. It is crucial that these applications are exceptional and not abused, to uphold the fundamental legal principle of finality in litigation. This ensures that judgments, once rendered, are respected unless compelling reasons of procedural fairness necessitate a review.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

When does the Federal Court have inherent power to review its own decisions?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends