The Federal Court, the country's highest court, last month made a landmark ruling in the Metramac case which went practically unnoticed, said prominent lawyer Hamid Sultan Abu Backer.

"The ruling overturned a serious miscarriage of justice that had arisen in what is referred to as the Lam Kong and Capital Insurance cases, and brought back constitutional guarantees for citizens," said Hamid, who has written a number of books on law and articles on legal and courtroom matters which have been published in the Malayan Law Journal .

"The decision by the Federal Court in 2000 to disallow appeals in Lam Kong and Capital Insurance because it claimed that it had no jurisdiction over interlocutory (temporary) orders and injunctions, was in fact a dereliction of constitutional duty," explained Hamid.

"The Federal Court then had failed to uphold the constitution within the spirit of Article 101."

(An interlocutory order or injunction is a temporary order by the court that is pending the outcome of another appeal that is tied to it.)

Many lawyers at that time viewed this as a 'one-sided' ruling, which can put citizens at a disadvantage. They considered the Lam Kong and Capital Insurance ruling to be a 'restrictive interpretation' of section 96(a) and 67(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

Hamid said the Federal Court's March 27 decision in Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd vs Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd has made a major impact in the judicial process and is welcome news for those in the legal profession as well as the public.

He went on to explain that the judicial powers of the federation are vested in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, except in the case of Syariah law.

"(The term) 'judicial powers' essentially means to do justice in all matters whether regulated by statute or case law and this power is rooted in Article 101 of the Federal Constitution," Hamid said.

"So if the courts fail to adhere to the terms of Article 101, they are eroding the constitutional guarantees of citizens provided for in our constitution."

Court can hear appeals

In the Metramac case, the Federal Court ruled that it can hear appeals on interlocutory orders and injunctions issued by the Court of Appeal, overruling the previous stand.

Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim - who headed a panel of five judges comprising Richard Malanjum, Pajan Singh Gill, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and Augustine Paul (who was later replaced by Nik Hashim Nik Abd Rahman) - said the decision was unanimous.

The court made the ruling after hearing an application by Metramac for leave to appeal against an interlocutory injunction delivered by the Court of Appeal on Oct 25 last year restraining Metramac from dealing with RM100 million in cash and assets.

The Court of Appeal injunction was given pending its own decisions on two appeals by both Fawziah Holdings and Metramac Corporation on a High Court 2003 judgment against Metramac for breach of contract on the payment of compensation to Fawziah Holdings for loss of advertising rights from the Cheras toll concession.

The High Court had held Metramac liable and awarded damages to Fawziah Holdings but ordered that the final compensation be assessed by the Registrar.

Fawziah Holdings on the other hand submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision claiming liquidated damages of RM65 million and loss of profits under future contracts.

"Before this landmark decision, appellants did not have any further avenues to take their case to the Federal Court on interlocutory orders even if the Court of Appeal may have erred in its judgment," said Hamid.

According to Hamid, the Metramac decision is not entirely new.

"In 2002, the Federal Court in Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas vs Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd, ruled that where there is a clear case of injustice committed, the Federal Court, as the apex court, should not shrink from its responsibility of preventing injustice in appropriate cases," he said.

"But where Megat did not overrule Lam Kong, the ruling in Metramac did, and this has brought our legal procedures back to its proper administration as guaranteed in Article 101 of the Federal Constitution."