Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6197
HIGH COURT MALAYA SUNGAI PETANI
NOOR FAZILAH ISMAIL – Appellant
Versus
DR SITI ROKIAH ISHAK & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: KB-12A-4-07/2024]
Admissions for judgment under Order 27 r 3 must be clear and unequivocal; conditional statements during negotiations do not constitute valid admissions.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 27 r 3(1) - Application for judgment based on admission of facts - Plaintiff's appeal dismissed as the court found no clear and unequivocal admission of liability by the Defendants during case management - The court emphasized that admissions must be explicit and not conditional. (Paras 12, 18, 24)
(B) Legal Discretion - The court retains discretion under O 27 r 3 to grant judgment based on admissions, but it must be clear and unequivocal; mere negotiation does not constitute an admission. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed damages for medical negligence against the Defendants, who denied liability and argued that the minutes of case management did not reflect an admission of liability. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff's reliance on case management minutes was unfounded as there was no unequivocal admission of liability, and the issue of expert reports was irrelevant to the admission claim. (Paras 18, 24)
Issues: The court addressed whether the Defendants' statements during case management constituted an admission of liability and the implications of ongoing negotiations on that admission. (Paras 18, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that admissions must be clear and unconditional for judgment to be entered under O 27 r 3; conditional statements do not satisfy the requirement for an unequivocal admission. (Paras 12, 18)
Result: Plaintiff's appeal dismissed with costs of RM1500.00.
Introduction
[1] For convenience, parties will be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court.
[2] This is the Plaintiffs appeal against the decision of the learned Session Court Judge (SCJ) dated 8 July 2024 wherein she dismissed the Plaintiffs application to enter judgment on admission of facts under O 27 r 3(1) Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC ).
[3] After careful consideration of the cause papers and submissions, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal on 9 February 2025. The following are the reasons for that decision.
Background Facts
[4] The Plaintiff instituted a suit in the Sessions Court claiming damages for alleged medical negligence whilst she underwent treatment in Kulim Hospital circa 2020.
[5] In their Statement of Defence, the Defendant denied the whole of the Plaintiff's claim and put her to strict proof.
Application Under Order 27 ROC
[6] The Plaintiff's application for judgment was premised on admissions made during case management of her suit on 30 May 2023 dan 20 December 2023 (Exhibits "NF-1" and "NF-2", pages 24 - 27 Rekod Rayuan Jilid II).
[7] The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were well aware of their negligence from their own internal investigation report. They failed to produce the report thus far and recanted on recording judgment on liability.
[8] The Plaintiff submitted that based on the minutes of the case management, the Defendants had admitted liability for the Plaintiffs claim. The Plaintiff cited Nurul Husna Muhammad Hafiz & Anor v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors ; [2015] 1 PIR 2, wherein Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera HCJ (as His Lordship then was) allowed judgment to be recorded against the defendants based on their admission during case management.
[9] The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were hiding their specialist report and cited Multi-purpose Credit Sdn Bhd v. Tan Sri Dato' Paduka (Dr) Ting Pek Khing ; . The Plaintiff liken the Defendants' failure to produce the report to "hendak menepung tiada beras."
[10] The Defendants on the other hand denied the Plaintiffs allegations and averred that the minutes of the case management did not amount to an admission of liability on their part. This was because parties were in the midst of negotiating settlement.
[11] The Defendants submitted that they were not under any obligation to produce their expert report and that the failure to do so did not tantamount to an admission of liability on their part.
[12] The Defendant submitted that O 27 r 3(1) ROC gave the Court the discretion and cited Affin Bank Bhd v. Successcom Enterprise Sdn Bhd ; [2009] 1 MLJ 36; [2009] 4 CLJ 764 at 51:
"In an application for judgment based on admission it is a principle of law that the Court has power to enter judgment against a defendant based on an admission of facts made on pleadings or otherwise under O 27 r 3 of the RHC. However, it is not a matter of right that a plaintiff can obtain judgment based on an admission of facts under O 27 r 3 of the RHC. The Court has a discretion as to whether judgment should and such discretion is exercised depending on the circumstances of the case. See the case of In re Wright Kirke v. North [1895] 2 Ch 747. The Court will only allow judgment to be entered under OO 27 r 3 of the RHC if there is an unequivocal admission of fact which entitles the plaintiff to enter judgment against the defendant. If liability turns on a question of law or mixed fact and law, judgment cannot be obtained (see the case of Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd v. Hj Abdullah Hj Sulaiman & Anor ; ). As such, if a plaintiff cannot show that all the components of his cause of action have been admitted, the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment under O 27 r 3 of the RHC. The Court will not exercise its discretion to allow judgment to be entered under O 27 r 3 of the RHC if there are issues to be tried or there is a defence to the action."
Principles Of Law
[13] Order 27 r 3(1) ROC reads:
"Where admissions of fact are made by a party to a cause or m
