[2023] 3 MLRA 254
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ
[Civil Review No: 08(RS)-12-09-2019(W)]
Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ


Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJ:

[1] Pared to its bare facts, this is what this application for 'review' was.

[2] On 3 May 2018, the applicant was granted leave to appeal under s 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91]. The applicant proceeded to file a Notice of Appeal on 16 May 2018 and thereafter, filed the records of appeal, memorandum of appeal and other bundles of documents as are generally required for the hearing of the substantive appeal.

[3] On 25 June 2018, the respondents moved the Federal Court under r 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 and/or inherent jurisdiction to strike out the order granting the applicant leave to appeal as well as his Notice of Appeal. The respondents cited the full satisfaction of the judgment sum with interest and the receipt of that judgment sum as the basis for arguing that the application for leave to appeal had been rendered redundant and nugatory with the Federal Court correspondingly having no jurisdiction to entertain the motion for leave to appeal. In short, that the applicant had compromised his right to appeal. The parties exchanged affidavits in relation to the motion.

[4] On 12 March 2019, the motion was allowed, by majority. The striking out motion was scheduled for hearing on the same day as the substantive appeal. The applicant was present in court for the hearing - see para 12 of his affidavit in support [encl 2].

[5] Before us, the applicant sought to review those orders; and to reinstate Federal Court Civil Appeal No 02(f)-46-06/2018(W) for hearing vide motion in encl 1. His principal arguments in support of the application are as follows:

i. the question of whether he had compromised his right to appeal was a question of fact which could not be determined on the material before the Court since it was not an irresistible inference that he had compromised that right in the light of his denial of compromise;

Sign up to view full cases Login