Yong Tshu Khin v Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd & Other Appe
als,(1) seven motions were filed contesting the validity of the appointment of two judges and challenging their respective decisions.
Pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995, the seven motions were filed in the apex court, requesting it to invoke its inherent power to review its decisions delivered in seven separate lawsuits. Interestingly, a common question arose from these motions premised on coram failure and further questions that were peculiar to the circumstances of each case. While the apex court dismissed all of the motions, its unanimous decision on coram failure is significant for ongoing and future cases.
This monthly report is compiled and briefly summarised by a group of lawyers on a voluntary basis for the benefit of readers of The Edge.
Please consult your own lawyers if you need advice on the cases, issues and related matters highlighted here.
Federal Court (‘FC’) sets guidelines with respect to its power to review its own decisions
The FC, being the apex Court of the country, is not bound by its own decisions. In hearing an appeal proper, the FC may depart from its earlier decisions. In reviewing its own decisions, the FC must be satisfied that the case is fit for review in that it falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances. Examples include coram failure or the panel of the FC was improperly constituted, breach of natural justice, or when bias is established. These examples fall within the meaning of ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’. To expand the category of cases beyond ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’, or giving a broad or unrest