Rulings made during a trial that do not dispose of rights are not appealable as per CJA s 67.

[1] This the Defendant's application (encl 68) to obtain leave of this Court to file additional bundles of documents and to call three additional witnesses. The application was made in the course of trial after the Plaintiff had closed its case.

[2] Full trial of the Plaintiff's suit against the Defendant commenced on 19 April 2017. On 27 April 2017, after the Plaintiff had closed its case, the Defendant requested for the hearing to be adjourned to another date because the Defendant's first witness ("SD1") was not feeling well: Defendant's counsel presented a medical certificate to that effect. This Court allowed the adjournment and fixed continued hearing of the trial on 30 and 31 May 2017.

[3] On 29 May 2017, the Defendant's solicitor (Messrs Tan Chap & Associates) filed an application (encl 65) to discharge themselves from representing the Defendant. On 31 May 2017, this Court granted order in terms of Enclosure 65 and fixed continued hearing of the trial on 5 and 6 July 2017.

[4] On 13 June 2017, the Defendant's new solicitors, Messrs Henry Soong and Chang, filed the following applications:

(i) "Notis Pelantikan Peguamcara" to represent the Defendant (Enclosure 67);

(ii) leave for Defendant to file additional bundles of documents and to call three additional witnesses (Enclosure 68); and

(iii) for an order from this Court to direct Messrs. Tan Chap & Associates to furnish all the cause papers in relation to this Suit to the Defendant (Enclosure 78). The Defendant subsequently withdrew encl 78.

[5] On 5 July 2017, this Court heard the Defendant's application for leave in encl 68 and dismissed the said application. Continued hearing of the trial proceeded on the same day with the examination of SD1.

Grounds Of Decision

The grounds of my decision in dismissing Enclosure 68 are set-out below:

[6] The Defendant's counsel submits that its application in encl 68 is premised on O 34 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC "?). The Defendant's director and shareholder ("SD1") in his affidavit in support of the leave application said that the Defendant made the application because it did not receive adequate feedback from its former solicitors and that upon further review of the proceedings decided that additional documents together with additional witnesses are necessary. SD1 averred that in an email dated 12 May 2017 (two weeks after the Plaintiff had closed its case) to the Defendant's former solicitors, he had asked them to call the additional witnesses. But his former solicitors refused. For this reason, the Defendant appointed new solicitors to act for it in this Suit.

[7] Order 34 ROC contains rules dealing with pre-trial case management. It was introduced by the on 1 August 2012 to facilitate case management in the courts and to replace the previous O 34 RHC, which dealt with the setting down for trial of actions begun by writ. The editors of the Malaysian Civil Procedure 2015 ('White Book') commented that:

The amendments made extensive changes to the procedure to be followed before the trial of an action. They envisage the Court taking a proactive role in setting down time frames and giving directions as to the preparation of each party's case for the preparation of each party's case for the purposes of the trial, while enabling the Court to impose sanctions for non-compliance with those directions.............

[8] The Federal Court in Hong Leong Finance Bhd v. Low Thiam Hoe v. Another Appeal, , observed that under the new case management regime introduced under O 34 ROC , a different approach needs to be taken to prevent delay in the progress of a case to trial.

[9] Zul