This is one of the leading cases on Review Application at the Fed Court, i think it is worth for us to remember the principles in that case:
Tun Zaki wrote the main judgment and i summarize as follows:
Principle of Review
1.Review is not a creation of statute; it does not give jurisdiction to the apex court but it provides inherent jurisdiction. Hence,Fed Ct does not have jurisdiction to review decision originated from subordinate court.( there is one case decided by Fed Ct on this issue, i will write about it one day)
2. There should be finality in litigation.
3. A different opinion by another panel is not ground for review.
4. The review if given without strict appreciation of the laws and facts will lead to judge shopping
5. The Fed Court is the highest court of law provided by FC, there is no such Court of Review in our judicial system under the pretext of reviewing the Fed Ct decision.
Circumstances where review may be appropriate.
a. That there was a lack of quorum eg, the court was not duly constituted as two of the three presiding judges had retired. (Chia Yan Tek & Anor v. Ng Swee Kiat & Anor  4 CLJ 61).
b. The applicant had been denied the right to have his appeal heard on merits by the appellate court. (Megat Najmuddin bin Dato Seri (Dr) Megat Khas v. Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd  1 CLJ 645)
c. Where the decision had been obtained by fraud or suppression of material evidence. (MGG Pillai v. Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun  3 CLJ 577)
d. Where the court making the decision was not properly constituted, was illegal or was lacking jurisdiction, but the lack of jurisdiction is not confined to the standing of the quorum that rendered the impugned decision. (Allied Capital Sdn Bhd v. Mohd Latiff bin Shah Mohd and another application  4 CLJ 350)
e. Clear infringement of the law. (Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Kobchai Sosothikul  1 CLJ 565)
f. Where an applicant under r. 137 has not been heard by this court and yet through no fault of his, an order was inadvertently made as if he had been heard. (Raja Prithwi Chand v. Sukhraj Rai[AIR] 1941)
g. Where bias had been established. (Taylor & Anor v. Lawrence & Anor  2 All ER 353)
h. Where it is demonstrated that the integrity of its earlier decision had been critically undermined e.g. where the process had been corrupted and a wrong result might have been arrived at. (Re Uddin  3 All ER 550)
i. Where the Federal Court allows an appeal which should have been consequentially dismissed because it accepted the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal. (Joceline Tan Poh Choo & Ors v. V. Muthusamy  6 CLJ 1;  6 MLJ 485)
Circumstances where review is not an option.
a.It does not apply where the findings of this court is questioned, whether in law or on the facts (since these are matters of opinion which this court may disagree with its earlier panel). (Chan Yock Cher @ Chan Yock Kher v. Chan Teong Peng 4 CLJ 29)
Ps: read the case of Malaysian Bar as well ( i might be reviewing this case soon)