Back
2020 MarsdenLR 3347
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
VELLASAMY PONNUSAMY & ORS – Appellant
Versus
GURBACHAN SINGH BAGAWAN SINGH & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: A-02(IM)-2368-11-2018]
Procedural rules should not prevent the pursuit of substantive justice; courts must balance adherence to rules with the need to prevent injustice.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 37 – Dismissal for delay in application for assessment of damages – Plaintiffs filed application late contrary to O 37 r 1 – The Federal Court had ordered assessment of damages, yet High Court dismissed the application citing inordinate delay. Court ruled that rules of procedure must align with substantive rights and the intention to avoid injustice. It emphasized the necessity for discretion in case management to prioritize justice over mere technicality. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 17)
(B) Substantive Justice vs. Procedural Technicality – The court stressed the importance of ensuring that procedural rules do not undermine substantive rights, advocating for a more holistic approach to decision-making that prioritizes justice. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case: The plaintiffs filed a late application to assess damages despite a Federal Court order mandating assessment, leading to dismissal by the High Court. A lengthy litigation history was presented, with a significant delay attributed to various procedural challenges and intervenor applications.
Findings of Court: The learned Judicial Commissioner’s reliance on earlier case law was misapplied; a judicial approach should not deprive litigants unjustly of their rights due to procedural noncompliance. The appeal was allowed, and assessment of damages is to proceed based on the Federal Court's order.
Issues: The court addressed whether O 37 r 1 of the ROC 2012 is mandatory and whether plaintiffs’ application was pursued with all convenient speed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while rules must be followed, the overriding principle is to dispense justice rather than to penalize for technical failures in procedure. (Paras 8, 18)
Result: The appeal is allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
[1] The appellants' (plaintiffs) appeal is principally related to the construction of O 37 Rules of 2012 ( ROC 2012), and it arises from their application of encl 20 in the High Court inter alia to condone delay. The appellants have not filed an application for direction for assessment of damages within one month from the date of an order or judgment, and on that ground the learned High Court Judge in reliance of the Court of Appeal's decision as well as the decisions of the High Court had ruled that there was inordinate delay in filing encl 20 and thereby dismissed encl 20.
[2] Parties have relied on the following cases:
"(1) Chong Keat Realty Sdn Bhd v. Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd , [2003] 3 CLJ 532; (2) Hee Nyuk Fook v. Public Prosecutor; [1988] 2 MLJ 360; (3) Coles and Ravenshear [1907] 1 KB 1, 4; (4) Md Yusoff Ahmad v. Siti Hajar Sarkawi & Anor; [2013] 1 MLJ 329; (5) Rossarin Nuekaew v. PP; [2016] 2 MLJ 203; [2017] 8 CLJ 503; (6) JMB Silverpark Resort v. Silverpark Sdn Bhd & Anor; (7) TWT Hardware Sdn Bhd & Anor v. RHB Bank; (8) Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra v. Petra Perdana Berhad & Another Case, [2018] 2 MLJ 177; (9) Nusantara Nilam Sdn Bhd v. Hicks Flat JMB; (10) Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Ong See Teong & Anor; [2010] 2 MLJ 155; [2010] 2 CLJ 1; (11) Tetuan Sri Ling & Associates v. Lian Meng Wah, ; (12) Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal; [2009] 4 MLJ 149; [2009] 4 CLJ 329; [2009] 5 AMR 296; (13) Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan & Anor v. Syarikat Sebati Sdn Bhd; [2017] 2 MLJ 670; [2017] 4 CLJ 101; (14) Konsortium Lebuhraya Utara-Timur (KL) Sdn Bhd v. Liew Choong Kin; [2018]3 MLJ 354; [2018] 6 CLJ 217; (15) United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd v. Ernest Cheong Yong Yin; [2001] 2 MLJ 561; [2001] 2 CLJ 31; [2001] 1 AMR 1073; (16) National Union Of Bank Employees v. Director General Of Trade Unions & Anor; [2013] 6 MLRA 345; [2013] 6 MLJ 167; [2013] 7 CLJ 957; [2013] 5 AMR 729; (17) Keruntum Sdn Bhd v. The Director Of Forests & Ors; [2017] 1 SSLR 505; [2017] 3 MLJ 281; [2017] 4 CLJ 676; (18) Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Bhd v. Abdul Razak Sheikh Mahmood & Anor; [2004] 2 MLJ 15; [2004] 2 CLJ 1; [2004] 2 AMR 490; (19) A2i Co Ltd v. MiTV Corporation Sdn Bhd; [2016] 5 AMR 149; (20) YB Ding Kuong Hiing MP v. Dr Wong Hua Seh; (21) Mohd Karim Abas & Ors v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan Sekerja; [2013] 4 MLJ 420 (22) Malayan Banking Bhd v. The Official Assignee; [1993] 2 AMR 3400; (23) Foo Nyit Tse v. Yew Chee Seong & Anor [1934] MLJ 204; (24) Permodalan MBf Sdn Bhd v. Tan Sri Datuk Seri Hamzah Abu Samah & Ors; [1988] 1 MLJ 178; [1998] 1 CLJ 244; (25) Koperasi Rakyat Bhd v. Harta Empat Sdn Bhd; [2000] 3 MLJ 81 ; [2000] 3 CLJ 719 ; [2000] 2 AMR 2311; (26) Manokaram Subramaniam v. Ranjid Kaur Nata Singh; [2009] 1 MLJ 21; [2008] 6 CLJ 209; [2008] 6 AMR 17; (27) Dato' Tan Heng Chew v. Tan Kim Hor & Another Appeal; [2006] 2 MLJ 293; [2006] 1 CLJ 577; (28) JMB Silverpark Resort v. Silverpark Sdn Bhd & Anor; (29) Prudentdeals Sdn Bhd v. YM Tengku Abdul Halim Ibni Almarhum Sultan Ibrahim; (30) Ali Jeman v. Indranika Jaya Sdn Bhd & Ors; (31) Mat Jim Wahab v. Nagasteel Equipment Sdn Bhd & Anor; (32) Lucy Wong Nyuk King (f) & Anor v. Hwang Mee Hiong (f); (33) Diljit Kaur Puran Singh v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia; [2015] 7 MLJ 695; [2014] 4 CLJ 836; [2014] 2 AMR 346; (34) Liau Kim Lian v. Bajuria; [1971] 1 MLJ 276; (35) Gooi Hock Seng v. Chuah Guat Khim; [2001] 1 CLJ 583; [2000] 3 AMR 3683; (36) Koay Hean Khoon v. Abdul Jamil Abdul Mutalib & Anor; [2015] 8 CLJ 410; (37) Ng Bak Soon & Anor v. Lee Chin Yen & Anor; (38) Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors; [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 6 AMR 781; (39) Bank Utama (Malaysia) Berhad v. Sistem BIS Komputer Sdn Bhd & Ors; [1994] 3 MLJ 452; [1994] 4 CLJ 347; [1994] 3 AMR 2175; (40) Khor Cheng Wah v. Sungai Way Leasing Sdn Bhd; [1996] 1
