Hisham bin Halim v Maya binti Ahmad Fuaad & Ors

Appellant(s): Hisham Bin Halim

Respondent(s):

• Maya Binti Ahmad Fuaad
• Ketua Hakim Syarie Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Selangor
• Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia
• Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Negeri Selangor
• Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Negeri Selangor
• Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Negeri Selangor
• Kerajaan Negeri Selangor
• Kerajaan Malaysia
• Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Mais)

• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin
• YA Tuan Leonard David Shim

• The appellant sought judicial review in the Civil High Court to challenge ongoing committal proceedings in the Syariah High Court, initiated by the first respondent for alleged non-compliance with an interim custody order.
• The appellant specifically sought a declaration that the Syariah High Court lacked jurisdiction to punish for contempt and orders to quash the committal proceedings.
• The Civil High Court dismissed the judicial review application, affirming the Syariah High Court's jurisdiction over custody and contempt matters, and deeming the application premature.

• Whether the Syariah High Court's grant of leave to issue a Notice to Show Cause constituted a judicially reviewable "decision" under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012.
• Whether the judicial review application was filed within the three-month time limit prescribed by Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012.
• Whether the appellant's challenge to the State Legislature's power to empower Syariah Courts with contempt jurisdiction was an "incompetency challenge" requiring Federal Court leave under Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution.

• The Court of Appeal held that the leave to issue a Notice to Show Cause was merely an interlocutory step, not a final "decision" that adversely affected the appellant's rights, and thus not amenable to judicial review.
• The Court found the judicial review application was time-barred, having been filed significantly beyond the three-month statutory limit without an extension, thereby depriving the Civil High Court of jurisdiction.
• The Court concluded that the appellant's challenge was fundamentally an "incompetency challenge" to the constitutional validity of State law, which required leave from the Federal Court under Article 4(4) FC, a procedure not followed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.