Litigants must adhere to procedural rules and timelines; delayed applications may be dismissed to avoid prejudice to opposing parties.

[1] This is a Notice of Application ('N/A') by the Appellant/ Plaintiff in an appeal arising from a defamation suit in the Sessions Court to amend the Memorandum of Appeal. The N/A was only filed after the Respondent had raised a preliminary objection ('PO') in her Written Submission as to the Memorandum of Appeal being defective for breach of O 55, r 4(3) of the Rules of , 2012 (' ROC '). The appeal is against the decision the Learned Sessions Court Judge ('LSCJ') in dismissing the Appellant's claim with costs of RM8,000.00.

[2] Chronology of Events

(1) The Notice of Appeal was filed on 13 December 2018.

(2) The Memorandum of Appeal dated 12 December 2018 and the Record of Appeal have been filed and served on the previous solicitors of the Respondent, one Messrs Davis & Low, via an email on 12 December 2018 and by hand on 17 December 2018.

(3) A Supplemental Record of Appeal which contains Grounds of Judgment and Notes of Evidence was filed on 6 March 2019 and accepted by the Respondent's Solicitors, Messrs. Min Kai & Co on 9 March 2019.

(4) The Respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the Memorandum of Appeal dated 12 December 2018 for the first time in her Written Submission, inter alia, that the grounds of appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge are vague.

(5) During pre-trial case management ('PTCM') before the Deputy Registrar, the Respondent's Counsel merely raised a preliminary objection regarding the need for leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal.

[3] Factual Background of Claim

(1) The Plaintiff worked as an insurance agent for Hong Leong Assurance Berhad.

(2) The Defendant was the Plaintiff's sister-in-law.

(3) The Defendant was involved in other family litigation matters with the Plaintiff's brother, among others, on issues relating to custody, care and control of their child and committal proceedings as a result of the Defendant's failure to follow the terms of access to the child as ordered by the Court following their divorce.

(4) The Defendant published 3 Facebook posts in a Facebook group known as "The Law & The True" on 14 July 2017, 15 July 2017 and 24 July 2017 respectively which contained numerous defamatory statements in Chinese against the Plaintiff.

(5) The 3 Facebook posts were accordingly admitted as evidence and marked as Exhibits, the contents of which were never disputed. In fact, the Defendant submitted it was justified.

[4] Grounds In Support of Application (Enclosure 14)

(1) The Respondent has raised a preliminary objection ('PO') to the Memorandum of Appeal dated 12 December 2018 for the first time in their Written Submission dated 25 April 2019 among others, that the grounds on which the Appellant lodged his appeal and/or for opposing the Session Court's decision are unclear and ambiguous;

(2) At any material time, the Appellant's solicitor was never presented with the PO before the filing and service of the Respondent's Written Submission dated 25 April 2019 informing this Honourable Court of her intention to object during the Case Management and her solicitor had failed to serve the former with the Notice of Preliminary Objection accordingly;

(3) To avoid confusion and problems during hearing of the Appeal, the Deputy Registrar had advised that this application be filed and be heard properly;

(4) This Application is needed to regularize the issue of technicalities raised by the Respondent and it is not prejudicial to her since the main Appeal has yet to be heard.

[5] The Respondent's Contentions

(1) The Respondent denies that the Appellant has the right to rely on O 55, r 9, O 3 r 5(1), O 1A and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 (' ROC ') to file the application to amend the Memorandum of Appeal after the breach of O 55, r 4(3) of the because that would be inflicting miscarriage of justice on and is prejudicial to, the Respondent.

(2) Under O 55, r 4(3) of the ROC , the Appellant has a duty t