BEEMER SDN BHD 1. ) Datuk Bandar, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya 2. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA

BEEMER SDN BHD 1. ) Datuk Bandar, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya 2. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA

Extension of time was refused because the applicant filed the judicial review well beyond the three‑month period without showing a good reason, there was a pending appeal on the same subject (JR 112) creating a risk of abuse of process and duplicative litigation, and the applicant's arguments (including lack of prejudice to respondents) did not constitute sufficient good reason; consequently the leave application was not entertained and the extension was dismissed.

Citation
BA-25-53-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Beemer Sdn Bhd; First Respondent: Datuk Bandar, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya; Second Respondent: Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 September 2022
Case Number
BA-25-53-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Extension of Time; Leave Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; consequentially the application for leave for judicial review is not before the court and is dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Licensing, Abuse of Process, Procedural Timeliness
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Judicial Review Local Government Law Planning and Development Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Certiorari +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beemer Sdn Bhd

Applicant

Datuk Bandar, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya

First Respondent

Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application for Extension of Time; Leave Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted under Order 53 rule 3(7) Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the judicial review application was filed within the three‑month period under Order 53 rule 3(6)
  3. 3 Whether the existence of a parallel appeal and prior JR constitutes abuse of process (duplicative proceedings)

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant filed the judicial review well beyond the three‑month period without showing a good reason, there was a pending appeal on the same subject (JR 112) creating a risk of abuse of process and duplicative litigation, and the applicant's arguments (including lack of prejudice to respondents) did not constitute sufficient good reason; consequently the leave application was not entertained and the extension was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; consequentially the application for leave for judicial review is not before the court and is dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed
  • Application for leave for judicial review dismissed as a consequence