the proper disposal of the prayer for a stay of execution. D. THE STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK [13] Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 requires the leave of the Court before proceedings for judicial review may be commenced. The requirement of leave is a filtering mechanism. Its purpose is to ensure that only applications disclosing a genuine and arguable basis proceed to a full hearing, and to spare public bodies and tribunals the burden of answering unmeritorious challenges. At the leave stage the Court does not embark upon a determination of the merits; it asks only whether the application is not frivolous or vexatious and discloses an arguable case deserving of fuller consideration. That standard is well settled and, the first and second Respondents having indicated no objection to leave, is not in contest in the present application. [14] The Applicant must also be a person adversely affected by the decision impugned. That requirement is plainly satisfied: the Award is a monetary order made against the Applicant and enforceable against him. [15] The Strata Management Tribunal is a creature of statute. It is established under the Strata Management Act 2013 and exercises only such jurisdiction as that Act and the Strata Management (Strata Management Tribunal) Regulations 2015 confer upon it. A claim before the Tribunal is commenced by the filing of a Form 1. The Act draws a distinction between a management corporation and a joint management body. These are bodies of separate statutory origin and legal character, coming into being at different stages in the life of a strata development. The correct identification of the body entitled to bring a claim is therefore not a matter of mere form. [16] The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over inferior courts and tribunals is conferred by sections 24 and 25 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 read with paragraph 1 of the Schedule thereto, while Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 prescribes the procedure for its exercise. In R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor, the Federal Court affirmed that judicial review is not confined to defects in the decision-making process but extends to questions of illegality, jurisdictional error, irrationality and breach of the rules of natural justice, and that, in an appropriate case, review may extend to the substantive legality of the impugned decision and not merely its procedural propriety. In Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan, the Federal Court reaffirmed that the legality of the acts and decisions of a statutory body is amenable to the Court's supervisory jurisdiction. Earlier, in Government of Malaysia & Anor v Jagdis Singh, the Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to certiorari where the complaint raises issues of jurisdiction, legality or breach of natural justice, although the grant of relief remains a matter of judicial discretion. [17] The bearing of these authorities at the present stage is limited but real. They identify the kinds of error that are, in principle, reviewable. The question of arguability falls to be assessed against that settled understanding of the supervisory jurisdiction. The Court does not, at the leave stage, decide whether any reviewable error has in fact occurred. E. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION The Threshold for Leave [18] The standard governing leave has been stated. The Court is concerned only to filter out the plainly unsustainable. It does not weigh competing factual assertions, nor form a concluded view on whether the Award will ultimately be quashed. The inquiry is whether the grounds advanced, taken at their reasonable height, raise questions of the kind the supervisory jurisdiction exists to address, and whether those questions are arguable rather than fanciful. The non-objection of the first and second Respondents does not relieve the Court of the duty to satisfy itself that the threshold is met, but it is a matter properly weighed in the Applicant's favour. I approach the grounds in that light. The Alleged Misdescription of the Claimant [19] The first and principal ground concerns the identity of the entity that commenced the Tribunal claim. Form 1 (YCF Tab A) describes the claimant as "Perbadanan Pengurusan Bersama Hatten Square Lot 1348". In the intitulement to the present application, the third Respondent is described as "Perbadanan Pengurusan Hatten Square Lot 1348", and the Applicant alleges that the claimant was wrongly described in the Tribunal proceedings. The sole textual difference between the two descriptions is the inclusion of the word "Bersama" in the claimant's name. [20] That difference is not, on its face, immaterial. As I have noted, the Strata Management Act 2013 distinguishes between a management corporation and a joint management body, which are distinct legal entities. Whether the discrepancy in the present case is a mere misnomer of a single existing body, or whether it reflects a confusion between two distinct entities such that the claimant before the Tribunal was misdescribed or lacked the standing to claim, is a question that cannot be resolved on the ex parte material now before the Court, and ought not to be. It is sufficient for present purposes that the question is a genuine one, and not contrived. [21] The point is, moreover, of a character that the supervisory jurisdiction exists to address. The standing of a claimant, and the competence of a statutory tribunal to entertain a claim brought by a particular entity, are anterior questions of legality and jurisdiction rather than questions going to the factual merits of the charges. They fall within the scope of review described in R Rama Chandran (FC); and the existence of the statutory Tribunal scheme does not, of itself, foreclose review of such a question, as Jagdis Singh (SC) makes clear. In my judgment this ground is arguable. I express no view on whether it will succeed. The Complaints as to the Condition of the Parcel, Access and Management [22] The grounds concerning the absence of valid vacant possession, the denial of access, and the failure of management stand on a different footing. The contentions that the parcel was delivered without proper walls, flooring or ceiling, that the Applicant was denied access, and that the management failed in its functions are, in substance, directed to the question whether the Applicant was liable to pay the charges claimed. Under the statutory scheme the obligation to contribute to the maintenance of common property attaches to the proprietor, and complaints of the present kind ordinarily go to the merits of that liability rather than to the legality of the Tribunal's decision. Taken in isolation, these grounds may face evident difficulty as candidates for judicial review. [23] It is, however, neither necessary nor appropriate to determine that question at the leave stage. The Court does not, at this stage, dissect the application ground by ground in order to admit some and reject others. Leave having been shown to be warranted on other grounds, the appropriate course is to allow the arguable case to proceed as a whole, leaving the proper characterisation of these particular complaints to be determined at the substantive hearing on full argument and on an inter partes record. I therefore express no concluded view upon them, and they need not be separately ruled upon. The Alleged Failure to Consider the Defence [24] The remaining ground is that the Tribunal failed to consider the defence advanced before it. The defence in Form 2 (YCF Tab C) included the matters already noted concerning the increase in maintenance charges and the alleged failure of management. The Applicant complains that the Award (Form 11, YCF Tab B) does not disclose that those matters were considered before the Tribunal reached its decision. [25] A failure by a tribunal to consider a defence properly before it, or to take into account relevant considerations, is capable of engaging the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court on grounds of procedural unfairness or illegality. Whether, upon a proper reading of the Award and any record of the Tribunal proceedings, the defence was in fact not considered is a matter for the substantive hearing. The notes or record of the Tribunal proceedings are not presently before the Court. At the leave stage, it is sufficient that the contention is arguable. I am satisfied that it is. The Prayer for a Stay [26] The Applicant seeks a stay of execution of the Award pending the disposal of the judicial review. Under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 the grant of leave does not of itself operate as a stay; a stay arises only where the Court so directs. [27] The Award is a monetary order made in favour of the third Respondent, who is not before the Court at the present ex parte stage. To restrain enforcement of the Award without affording the party in whose favour it was made an opportunity to be heard would be contrary to the requirements of fairness. The position taken by the Attorney General's Chambers, that the stay ought to be heard inter partes, is in my view correct, and consistent with its proper observation that it does not represent the substantive Respondent. The just course is to direct that the prayer for a stay be heard inter partes, with the third Respondent given notice, and the first and second Respondents at liberty to be heard. I decline to grant a stay at this stage. F. CONCLUSION [28] For the reasons given, the application discloses an arguable case fit for full consideration. The ground concerning the identity and standing of the claimant before the Tribunal, and the ground concerning the alleged failure to consider the defence, each cross the threshold for leave; and the first and second Respondents do not, in any event, oppose its grant. The complaints as to the condition of the parcel, access and management are left to the substantive hearing and need not be separately determined. The prayer for a stay is not one to be disposed of ex parte, and falls to be heard inter partes. G. ORDERS OF THE COURT [29] Accordingly, I make the following orders: