I shall put a disclaimer here: This blog entry is not about Da Vinci Code.
1. On 18 August 1987, Lim Kit Siang filed at the Penang High Court and applied for an interim injunction against United Engineers (M) Sdn Bhd to restrain it from signing the North South Highway contract.
The Supreme Court ruled that Lim Kit Siang did not have the locus standi although he might be a politician, a road user and a taxpayer. The court did not grant the leave and did not even discuss about the substantive issue.
2. Moving fast forward. Now, it is year 2006. The Abdullah Administration announced that UEM will be granted the contract to build the second Penang Bridge. No open tender was called.
3. Is there any changes to the law on locus standi since the case of UEM v LKS?
In the case of QSR Brands Bhd v Suruhajaya Sekuriti [2006] 3 MLJ 164, Court of Appeal noted on the changes of the new Order 53 (Rules of High Court). The test of threshold locus standi is "adversely affected". Gopal Sri Ram, JCA, quoted a case of Supreme Court of India and outlines the test on locus standi namely:
(a) Is there a sufficient personal interest? or
(b) Is the application a public interest litigation (PIL)?
4. Base on the fact of UEM v LKS, it is clearly fall under the category of Public Interest Litigation as described in QSR Brands. Should the UEM v LKS to be heard after the new Order 53, it will definitely pass thru the leave stage and at least will have a chance to be heard base on substantive issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment