Mandatory compliance with filing timelines in appeals is essential; insufficient reasons for delays result in dismissal of applications for extensions.

JUDGMENT

Julie Lack JC:

The Application

[1] The Appellant/Plaintiffs filed encl 5 which is a notice of application seeking leave for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court below which allowed the Defendants' application to strike out their claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 ROC 2012.

[2] The prayers sought in encl 5 are as follows:

(a) an order granting extension of time until 18 October 2020 to file the Notice of Appeal;

(b) a declaration that the Notice of Appeal dated 16 October 2020 is valid and in compliance with prayer (a);

(c) a declaration that the Notice of Appeal dated 16 October 2020 filed in the Selayang Sessions Court and served on the Defendants is valid; and

(d) alternatively, the Plaintiffs be given leave to file and served the Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Selayang dated 25 September 2020 within 14 days from the date of this Order.

[3] The application was opposed by the Respondents/Defendants.

[4] On 3 March 2021, this Court dismissed the Appellants' application in encl 5 and struck off the Appellants' appeal (Encl 1). Here are the reasons for that decision.

[5] The parties will be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court.

Brief Facts

[6] On 25 September 2020 the learned Sessions Judge (LSJ) allowed the Defendants' application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) ROC 2012.

[7] Any appeal against the said decision would have to be filed on or before 9 October 2020. It is not disputed that the Plaintiffs only filed their Notice of Appeal on 16 October 2020. They were about 1 week out of time. Service of the Notice of Appeal on the Defendants' solicitor was undertaken on 21 October 2020. The Plaintiffs made no attempt to file any application to extend the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal.

[8] On 28 October 2020 counsel for the Plaintiffs telephoned the counsel for the Defendants to enquire whether the Defendants had any objections to the delay of 1 week in the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Counsel for the Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' counsel informed him that they had no objections as the delay of 1 week was not prejudicial and did not cause any injustice to their clients. This is of course strenuously denied by counsel for the Defendants who claim that they merely stated that they would seek instructions from their client and would revert back to counsel for the Plaintiffs thereafter.

[9] On 11 November 2020 the Plaintiffs' solicitor was informed via letter dated 9 November 2020 that the Defendants objected to the delay in the filing of the Notice of Appeal and would be raising this as a preliminary issue.

[10] During case management before the SAR on 17 November 2020 the Defendants' solicitor again raised their objections to the late filing of the Notice of Appeal. The SAR advised counsel to put in the requisite application before the Judge.

[11] On 1 December 2020 the present application in encl 5 was filed.

Defendants' Reasons For The Application

[12] In their Affidavit in support of the application the Defendants furnished a number of reasons for the delay. Top on the list was that the Plaintiffs' solicitor had relied on the assurance given via telephone from the Defendants' solicitor that they had no objections to the delay as it "did not cause any prejudice or hardship". They were thus taken aback when the Defendants' solicitor wrote to them on 9 November 2020 to put on record their objection to the delay and would raise it as a preliminary objection. Counsel pointed out that the Defendants did not file any notice of application to raise their preliminary objection as was required by the rules of Court.

[13] It was also contended that there was no undue or inordinate delay and it had not caused any prejudice or hardship to the Defendants. If it did the Defendants would have mentioned it in their reply to the Affidavit by the Plaintiffs. There was no such averment fo