Functus Officio


Having discharged one’s duty; having completed one’s term of office; having ceased to hold some public appointment; having performed the authorised act and being unable to go back to it a second time. One who is functus officio is precluded from again considering the matter even if new arguments or evidence are presented: MacMillan Bloedel Ltd v Minister of Finance (1985) 60 BCLR 145.

(From Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary)


If still not finalized or perfected; therefore may be revisited

“… from Tenaga Nasional Bhd - vs - Prorak Sdn Bhd

“… We pause to observe that counsel and the learned Judge were quite wrong in assuming that the court was functus officio merely because judgment had been entered against the appellant. The default orders made by the learned Judge had not been extracted. The court, at the point in time when counsel for the appellant made his oral application, therefore, continued to have full control over the judgment it had entered. That proposition finds support from the decision of the former Federal Court in Chee Kuan Cheng v Chuo Kong Kah [1967] 2 MLJ 74, where Ong Hock Thye FJ (later CJ (Malaya)) said (at P 75):

Until an order is perfected the court’s jurisdiction to review the subject matter and to recall an order pronounced is undoubtedly a matter of wide discretion.