Silence or failure to contest invoices by the defendant amounts to acceptance of liability, and summary judgment is appropriate where no legitimate defense is presented.

[1] What happened here is rather uneventful. It is an atypical debt-recovery claim for work done and services rendered under a construction contract, which explains why it is filed in this construction court. The Plaintiff had applied in encl 6 by way of a Notice of Application dated 17 November 2016 for leave to enter summary judgment against the Defendant.

[2] It is for the sum of RM 2,915,434.66 being the balance sums due and owing by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for services rendered in the form of installation and erection and rental of construction equipment known as scaffoldings and for the supply of manpower.

[3] The Plaintiff had an affidavit in support of the application in encl 7 dated 16 November 2016. The Defendant had an affidavit dated 20 December 2016 to oppose the application. Then the Plaintiff had another affidavit dated 28 December 2016 to reply to the Defendant's affidavit.

Postponement of Proceedings

[4] This might be an opportune time to state that on the date fixed for hearing of this application on 27 January 2017, learned counsel for the Defendant informed the court that he had been appointed 2 days ago to take over conduct of the case and so was applying for a postponement to file a further affidavit. As expected, learned counsel for the Plaintiff objected to the postponement application.

[5] Counsel appearing before the courts must know by now that they must be ready for the hearing of the application fixed or for trial save for the most extenuating of circumstances. Whilst there are the emergencies and the exigencies of life, they do not all come close to a valid reason for postponement. We all know one when we see one and no useful purpose would be served by giving a list of approved events that qualify for a postponement of a hearing.

[6] Taking over conduct of a case is certainly not a good enough reason for a postponement of a hearing. Learned counsel for the Defendant would have asked his client the hearing date fixed or to call up the solicitors for the Defendant to check on the progress of the case in court or perhaps do an electronic search of the case in court.

[7] The Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 addressed this situation in rr 6 and 24 as follows:-

"Rule 6. An advocate and solicitor not to accept brief if unable to appear.

(a) An advocate and solicitor shall not accept any brief unless he is reasonably certain of being able to appear and represent the client on the required day.

(b) An advocate and solicitor shall not ordinarily withdraw from an engagement once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the client.

...

Rule 24. Advocate and solicitor to be ready for the day fixed for trial.

(a) An advocate and solicitor shall make every effort to be ready for trial on the day fixed.

(b) An advocate and solicitor may apply for postponement of a case fixed for hearing for good and cogent reasons only.

(c) Except in an emergency, it is improper for an advocate and solicitor to apply for a postponement in the absence of counsel or the other side unless he has given the counsel concerned at least forty eight hours notice of his intention to make the application." (emphasis added)

[8] Rule 6(a) requires of an advocate and solicitor not just to appear for a client on the day fixed for hearing of an application but to represent the client on the day fixed for the hearing