Prior was not based on statutory but rather

Prior
to the Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 coming into force, there were
several principles that govern the locus standi previously. Locus standi by
definition simply means that an applicant must have judicial review in regards
to having a sufficient interest in that matter. As per quoted by Tun Salleh Abas
L.P as he was then, every legal system has a built-in-mechanism to protect its
judicial process from abuse by busybodies, cranks and other mischief-makers by
insisting that a plaintiff should have a special interest in the proceeding
which he constitutes. This special interest is a nexus between him and the
party against whom he brings his complainants to court and is known as locus
standi.

            Reading judicial review in line with
locus standi, it must be taken into note that there was a traditional approach
before the new approach came into force. As for the traditional approach of
judicial review, it was not based on statutory but rather an inherent right of
the courts. The courts were not supposed to interfere with the merits of the
decision as they only has supervisory jurisdiction. The courts had no inflicted
power upon them to change decisions on their own and they were only allowed to
review the decision-making process and not the decision itself. As far as the
current approach is concerned, the courts are now able to critically analyse
the merits of the case and providing relief to the aggrieved party.1

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            It must be noted that in during the
year of 2000 in Malaysia, there were no statutory Enactment that could define
in regards to locus standi. The judges had the utmost discretion as it was
simply procedures and rules laid down by them when it came to determining locus
standi prior to the introduction of order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. The
approach that was given during this period was the liberal approach prior to
1988 which in other words are open to reformation and new ideas and they are
not merely confined by traditional approach or thinking. This approach contributed
to the development of the public interest litigation in Malaysia.2

            However, one must take note that
this practice had changed in the year 1988 whereby the Supreme Court based on
the case of United Engineers (M) Berhad v Lim Kit Siang were in favor of the
“aggrieved person” test.

In the leading case of Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang; United Engineers (M) Berhad v
Lim Kit Siang 1988 LRC (Const) 8113,
it was stated that it can hardly be disputed that there is no single
authoritative definition of aggrieved person but in general it can be said that
a s person aggrieved is not merely one who is dissatisfied with some act or
decision but one who has been wrongly deprived of or has been refused something
to which he is legally entitled. Any person can come to court for the
protection or enforcement of his rights. The basis of his standing is the
assertion of his private rights. The liberal approach following Order 53 of the
Rule of the Supreme Court in England was rejected prior to the decision laid
down in the above case by the Supreme Court in Malaysia for the reason being
that Malaysia were not parallel or in line with the provision adhered to. It is
known that before Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England was
introduced, the courts in Malaysian followed or favored the approach specified
in Gouriet’s case. In the year 1988, it is known that the liberal approach was
restricted following the landmark case of UEM that if he can prove that he has
suffered special damages peculiar to himself, a person is said to have locus
standi to sue.  Following the approach in
the case of Gouriet v Union of Post
Workers 1978 A.C. 4354
whereby the courts in Malaysia favored this approach, it is known that
following Rule 3(5), Order 53 of the Rules of Supreme Court, unless it is
satisfied an applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the
application relates, the courts shall not grant leave. During the traditional
approach, the test for all remedies is whether the applicant has sufficient
interest.

1 Tan, M. (n.d.). Notes on judicial review. online Academia.edu. Available
at: http://www.academia.edu/12987662/Notes_on_judicial_review Accessed 22 Jan.
2018.

2 Keong, D. (2016). An Overview on the Public Interest
Litigation in Malaysia: Development and Dilemma Under Provision of Remedies for
Enforcement of Fundamental Rights. online Academia.edu. Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/30412644/An_Overview_on_the_Public_Interest_Litigation_in_Malaysia_Development_and_Dilemma_Under_Provision_of_Remedies_for_Enforcement_of_Fundamental_Rights
Accessed 22 Jan. 2018.

3 1988 LRC (Const) 811

4 1978 A.C. 435

Author:

x

Hi!
I'm Eileen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out