A litigant cannot maintain multiple appeals arising from the same subject matter, demonstrating abuse of process.

[1] The parties shall be referred to by their original titles in the Magistrates Court, ie as "plaintiff" and "defendants". The record of appeal shall be referred to as "AR". These are my grounds of judgment in respect of an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Magistrate dismissing an application to set aside a decision dated 19 June 2017 wherein the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs of RM1,000.00 and with liberty to file afresh. The decision was made under O 34 r (1) 3 of the Rules of 2012 on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the Magistrate's directive that the plaintiff must appoint counsel to represent her when the matter comes up for continued trial. The matter came up for continued hearing on 19 June 2017 and the plaintiff was without a counsel. The Magistrate heard submissions and decided to dismiss the claim with liberty to file afresh. She also ordered costs of RM1,000.00 to be paid by the plaintiff. I shall refer to the decision dated 19 June 2017 as "the impugned decision".

The Background

[2] The plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of High Court and claims that she joined the defendants, Messrs Adha Selvi and Associates, as a partner. But, this is vehemently denied by the defendants. Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendants contend that the plaintiff was appointed as a legal assistant to handle litigation files at a salary of RM5,500.00 per month. All other emoluments and benefits as alleged by the plaintiff per para 3 (ii) to (iv) of the amended statement of claim, were denied by the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that she was terminated whereas the defendants maintain that the plaintiff did not turn up for work. There were various other issues that were raised in the pleadings but it is not relevant to make reference to them. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Magistrate's Court and claimed the following reliefs:

"24. 16 Plaintif telah mengalami kerugian oleh kerana tindakan Defendan-Defendan mungkiri kontrak Plaintif dan oleh kerana tersebut di atas, Plaintif menuntut dari Defendan Pertama dan kedua seperti berikut:

i) wang sebanyak RM16,500.00/- iaitu 3 bulan gaji yang patut diberi oleh Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif kerana Defendan-Defendan dengan salah telah dengan serta merta menghentikan perkhidmatan Plaintif tanpa 3 bulan notis yang patut di beri seperti dipersetujui;

ii) wang sebanyak RM925.00 iaitu jumlah untuk 5 hari cuti tahunan yang tidak dipakai atau diambil oleh Plaintif;

iii) satu jumlah RM850.00 bagi kehilangan pemegang pensil krystal (pencil holder) dan slipper "scholl" dan sebagai alternative menaksirkan kerugian terhadap kehilangan barang-barang tersebut;

iv) satu akaun untuk semua wang yang harus dibayar kepada Plaintif atas kadar 20% untuk pengendalian kes-kes litigasi bagi pihak Defendan-Defendan dan untuk satu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua membayar kepada Plaintif kesemua wang yang patut dibayar oleh mereka kepada Plaintif setelah mengambil kira akaun tersebut.

v) satu akaun untuk menentukan amaun dan elaun perjalanan (mileage claims) yang belum diselesaikan bagi penghadiran beberapa Mahkamah-Mahkamah oleh Plaintif bagi pihak firma Defendan-Defendan dan untuk satu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua membayar kepada Plaintif kesemua wang yang patut dibayar oleh mereka kepada Plaintif setelah mengambil kira akaun tersebut.

vi) Faedah atas kadar 8% setahun mengenai tuntutan Plaintif dibawah butir-butir (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) perenggan 1111 dari 1 Julai 2010 sehingga 25 Februari 2016 dan 5% setahun dari 26 Februari 2010 sehingga tarikh penyelesaian.

vi) vii Mana-mana relif yang berpatutan munasabah dan berekuiti (equitable reliefs); dan

v) vi ii Kos."

The Events Before The Magistrate

[3] I turn now to the events that transpired before the Magistrate during the course of the trial. In this regard, I have reproduced (verbatim