The Tribunal for Consumer Claims (“TCC”), known in Malay as the Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna, was established pursuant to Section 85 of the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) 1999.[1]
Section 116(1) of the CPA 1999 provides that decisions of the TCC are “final and binding on all parties to the proceedings.”[2]
It is worth noting that there is no express avenue for nor right to appeal (rayuan) provided for under the CPA 1999 to challenge an award of the TCC.
A party dissatisfied with an award of the TCC should challenge the award by way of an application for judicial review.
This was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in Hazlinda bte Hamzah v Kumon Method of Learning Centre [2006] 3 MLJ 124:
“Although its awards are final (which means that they are final on the facts but not on the law: R v Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex p Gilmore [1957] 1 QB 574) they are amenable to judicial review.”[3] (Emphasis ours)
The primary relief sought in a judicial review application challenging an award of the TCC would be for the award to be quashed.
In challenging an award of the TCC:
(a) An Applicant has to show that “the tribunal has failed to adhere to the acceptable standards of administrative law and justice, or administrative governance”;[4]
(b) It would not be appropriate for the court to go into the merits or substance of the TCC’s decision.[5]
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are intended for information dissemination and academic discussion only and should not be construed as legal advice on a specific set of facts or circumstances. Should you require legal assistance, you may contact us via email (liti@pelim.my) or via WhatsApp/telephone call (+6011-5672 7813).
[1] “There shall be established a tribunal to be known as the “Tribunal for Consumer Claims””
[2] “Every agreed settlement recorded by the Tribunal under subsection 107(3) and every award made by the Tribunal under section 112—
(a) shall be final and binding on all parties to the proceedings; and
(b) shall be deemed to be an order of a Magistrate’s Court and be enforced accordingly by any party to the proceedings”
[3] Hazlinda bte Hamzah v Kumon Method of Learning Centre [2006] 3 MLJ 124 (CA), at p. 129
[4] As per Vernon Ong J (later FCJ) in Hello Holidays Sdn Bhd v Phang Lai Sim and other applications [2014] 8 MLJ 478 (HC), at para 27, which was quoted by the Court of Appeal in Su Tiang Joo v Tribunal for Consumer Claims & Anor [2021] 1 MLJ 411 (CA), at para 28
[5] Ibid.