The court maintained that compliance with procedural rules is essential, rejecting the defendants' request for extension due to significant non-compliance and lack of valid explanations.

JUDGMENT

S M Komathy Suppiah J:

[1] This was an application by the appellants (the defendants in the court below) seeking an extension of time pursuant to O 3 and/or O 92 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") to file 17 notices of appeal and to serve them and the record of appeal that was filed on 10 August 2020 out of time.

[2] The respondents (the plaintiffs in the court below) objected to the application on four principal grounds:

a. There was inordinate delay in filing the application;

b. There was no satisfactory explanation for the delay;

c. The plaintiffs would be prejudiced if the application was granted; and

d. That in any event, any extension granted would be an exercise in futility as the defendants had not serve the draft index on the plaintiffs before the filing and service of the record of appeal as required by O 55 r 4(4) of the ROC.

[3] After hearing arguments from both parties, I dismissed the application. I now give the detailed grounds for my decision. For convenience, I shall refer to the parties as they were in the court below.

Background Facts

[4] The facts leading up to the application are relevant. Eighteen actions were instituted in the Shah Alam sessions court against the two partners of the legal firm of Tetuan Termizi & Co for professional negligence court. The actions were registered separately and,given different registration numbers as they involved different plaintiffs.

[5] One of these actions was registered as BA-B53KP-6-03/2018. The learned sessions judge informed the litigants in the 18 actions that to save judicial time she would proceed with the trial of BA-B53KP-6-03/2018 as a test case and the decision thereon will bind the other 17 actions as they arose from the same facts. On 5 March 2020, after the completion of the trial, the sessions judge heard submissions and thereafter allowed the plaintiff's claim in BA-B53KP-6-03/2018.

[6] The defendants dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision filed a notice of appeal on 18 March 2020 in BA-B53KP-6-03/2018. In that notice of appeal they also attached 17 other notices of appeal in relation to the remaining cases. On the same day, the defendants served via email all the 18 notices of appeal on the plaintiff's solicitors and, and a month later ie, on 16 April 2021 served the sealed copies of the same on the plaintiffs.

[7] On 3 July 2020 the appeals came up for case management via e-review before the Senior Assistant Registrar. The parties sought clarification from her as to whether the appellant was required to file one or eighteen records of appeal. The Senior Assistant Registrar directed the defendants to file one and further directed that the record of appeal should make reference to the 17 other appeals.

[8] On 10 August 2020, the defendants filed and served the record of appeal and amended memorandum of appeal on the plaintiff. On the same date, the Senior Assistant Registrar via e-review directed the parties to file written submissions and set a date for the hearing of the appeal.

[9] By letter dated 29 September 2020, the solicitors representing the 18 plaintiffs gave notice to the defendants that the 17 notices of appeal filed in BA-B53KP-6-03/2018 were invalid as they ought to have been filed in the respective case numbers allotted to them.

[10] Some seven months later, specifically on 15 April 2021, the defendants filed the present application for extension of time to file and serve the 17 other appeals and the record of appeal (see [8] above). In support of the application, the defendants averred that they were compelled to file the 17 notices of appeal in one case ie, Case No BA-B53KP-6-03/2018 as:

"Semasa pihak-pihak perayu-perayu ingin memfailkan kesemua notis rayuan untuk 18 kes yang ingin dirayu di Mahkamah Sesyen, pihak perayu-perayu mendapati sistem pemfailan efs-kehakiman Mahkamah tidak menyenaraikan dan membuka sistem untuk memfailkan untuk kesemua 18 kes kecuali hanya dibuka untuk kes No BA-B53KP-1-02/2018 sahaja."

[11] The defendants further averred