Leong Pooh Oon (No. K/P: 911019-08-5305) Bayou Management Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 64670-K)

Leong Pooh Oon (No. K/P: 911019-08-5305) Bayou Management Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 64670-K)

Applicant missed the mandatory filing requirement and was 21 days late; the explanation (solicitor's self-quarantine due to child's close contact) was insufficient because the solicitor nevertheless took instructions and filed other documents in the same period; therefore no 'good reason' was shown to justify extension under O.53 r.3(7), the discretion was refused and the application to extend time (and thus the primary leave application) was dismissed with costs of RM2,500.

Citation
JA-25-5-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Leong Pooh Oon; Defendant/respondent: Bayou Management Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Case Number
JA-25-5-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application to Extend Time to File Order 53 R.3(2) Statement; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application to extend time dismissed; primary application for leave (Encl. 4) dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Tribunal Decision, Liquidated Ascertained Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Property/construction Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Tribunal Decision Liquidated Ascertained Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leong Pooh Oon

Plaintiff/applicant

Bayou Management Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application to Extend Time to File Order 53 R.3(2) Statement; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Order 53 r.3(7) to extend time to file the mandatory O.53 r.3(2) Statement
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established 'good reason' for a 21-day delay
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with Order 53 r.3(2) and statutory time limits deprives the court of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant missed the mandatory filing requirement and was 21 days late; the explanation (solicitor's self-quarantine due to child's close contact) was insufficient because the solicitor nevertheless took instructions and filed other documents in the same period; therefore no 'good reason' was shown to justify extension under O.53 r.3(7), the discretion was refused and the application to extend time (and thus the primary leave application) was dismissed with costs of RM2,500.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time dismissed; primary application for leave (Encl. 4) dismissed

Orders

  • Encl. 4 dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs to Respondent in the sum of RM2,500.00