Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Right Of Appeal - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Amount of the claim:
        Yai Yen Hon v Teng Ah Kok & Sim Huat Sdn Bhd
        
        P claimed RM4 million at trial, awarded judgment sum RM62,400.
        
        Held: Leave is not required, the determining factor is not the amount of the subject matter of the appeal, but the claim itself (Look at how much P claim in SOC)
      - Value of the Subject Matter of the claim:
        Harcharan Singh v Ranjit Kaur:
        
        Following Lam Kong, when the claim concerns not monetary compensation, the value of the subject matter (price of the land) is the determining factor.
      - If leave is required, and Appellant did not apply for leave, the appeal becomes competent and liable to be struck out.
      - Judicial review - The monetary threshold does not apply
        - Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah
    - - Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia
        
        Facts:
        
        P applied to amend the claim. Allowed by HC. --- D appealed to CoA which allowed the appeal. --- P now appealed to FC arguing that HC's decision in granting Amendment is not appelable to COA.
        
        Held:
        
        Issue 1: P did not raise this issue at the CoA level.
        
        Jurisdiction issue can be raised at any stage as consent and acquiescence does not give rise or establish jurisdiction which the court has none.
        
        Issue 2: s3 and 67
        
        s67, 68 shall be construed together with s3 which defines 'decision'
        
        “decision” means judgment, sentence or order, but does not
        include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of
        any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights
        of the parties;
    - - MT Ventures Sdn Bhd v QM Print Sdn Bhd:
        (MT Ventures)
        
        D applied to strike out P's claim on the ground that P does not have locus standi to sue as he was not the landowner (P carried out business on the land owned by someone else)
        
        Application dimissed. D appealed
        
        (Azinal)
        
        D applied to strike out suit as the claim was decided upon by prior litigation. Application dismissed.
        
        Issue: Whether s68(1)(f) precludes D's right to appeal?
        
        Must read s68 new provision in light of s3 where decision finally disposes of the parties' right are appealable
        - The decision finally dispose the parties' right when:
        
        Question of locus standi (MT Ventures)
        
        State Immunity
        
        Other threshold conditions
        
        (a)conditions to bring a derivative action
        
        (b) Res judicata (Azinal)
      - s68(1)(e) applies to all summary judgment including O14, O14A, O43, O81, O89 (Ideal Principles Sdn Bhd v Central Spectrum Sdn Bhd)
      - The amendment to CJA does not restrict COA from hearing and determining appeals arising from judgment or order of HC in the exercised of its appellate jurisdiction against the decision of sub court. (Nor Hazliza bt Ismail v Mohamed Yusoff bin Shaik Madar)
        
        When sessions court allowed D's application to strike out, P appealed. Then the appeal is allowed by HC.
        
        D appealed.
        
        This is allowed
- - - - Tio Chee Hing v United Overseas Bank Bhd:
        
        Where the HC is hearing the case in its appellate jurisdiction (OTF: hearing an appeal from director of land and survey), the case does not come within s96.
    - - Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd v Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd
        
        The word "any" in s. 96(a) CJA makes it applicable to every judgment or order of the Court of Appeal in respect of any civil cause or matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
        
        The use of the words "in respect of" in s. 96(a) CJA makes it clear that what is required is that there must be some connection or relation between the judgment or order of the Court of Appeal and the civil cause or matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
        
        Overruling Lam Kong on this point.
    - - Whether the refusal of CoA to grant leave of appeal from HC to CoA is appealable to FC?
        
        Lam Kong Co Ltd v Thong Guan Co Ltd:
        
        Stage 1: P sued D for specific performance. P entered JID and it was later set aside for irregularity.
        
        Stage 2: Proceed with trial. P winned. D appealed to CoA without obtaining leave.
        
        Applying s68(1)(a), leave was required and appeal was held to be incompetent. D should have applied for leave.
        
        Appeal struck out.
        
        Stage 3: D applied for leave to appeal to FC under s96(a)
        
        Majority held: Applying Auto Dunia, the appeal is dismissed as the discretion to grant leave is within exclusive jurisdiction of CoA.
        (This point was later overruled in Fawziah, the dissenting judgment by CJ Chong Siew Fai turns out to be the current position)
        
        Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd v Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd:
        
        Overruled Lam Kong in respect to the point of s96(a)
        
        Lam Kong drawed erroneous analogy with Auto Dunia
        
        Auto Dunia is deciding on whether refusal to grant leave by CoA is appealable.
        
        c/f Lam Kong: the appeal concerned a judgment made by CoA in deciding that D's appeal to CoA requires leave and it becomes incompetent when D appealed without first obtaining leave. (The issue is not surrounding on exclusive jurisdiction on CoA to grant leave)
        
        Auto Dunia Sdn Bhd v Wong Sai Fatt: Non-appealable
        
        FC has no jurisdiction to grant leave because the CoA's exercise of discretion is not a judgment or order within meaning of s96(a)
        
        The discretion of whether or not to grant leave is given exclusively to CoA, no further appeal can be lodged against the exercise of that discretion
  - - - Whether there is dissenting judgment in COA
      - Whether there has been consistent judicial opinion which may be uniformly wrong (Adorna Properties)
      - Leave normally not granted in interlocutory appeals
      - Where the applicant has no chance of success
      - Once leave is given, the leave requirement shall not be considered by another panel again unless the leave was erroneously granted as certain law which would lead the court to dismiss the leave in limine was not put before the leave panel