Duties of expert witnesses are emphasized, and failure to comply may result in sanctions. Parties must adhere to contract terms strictly, particularly in termination and claims.

A. Three Novel Issues

[1] This judgment concerns a suit (This Suit) by the plaintiff company (plaintiff) against the defendant company (defendant) for, among others, payment allegedly due from the defendant to the plaintiff for the plaintiff's supply of manpower and tools to erect and dismantle scaffolding for the defendant.

[2] The interesting feature of this case was that on 12 August 2015 [before the commencement of trial of This Suit (Trial)], the defendant had adduced a joint experts' report dated 6 August 2015 (Defendant's Joint Experts Report) [prepared jointly by Mr Richard John Bray (Mr Bray) and Mr Neil Sharpe (Mr Sharpe)] to resist This Suit. However, on 8 October 2021, after the close of the plaintiff's case and in the midst of the defence case, the defendant has filed an application in Court enclosure no 195 (Encl 195) for an extension of time to file a new expert's report by Mr Rodney Martin (Mr Martin) to oppose This Suit. According to the defendant's affidavit in support of Encl 195:

(1) Mr Bray had returned to United Kingdom (UK) and could not testify at the Trial due to "ongoing work commitments" in UK; and

(2) Mr Sharpe could not be contacted.

[3] Enclosure 195 raises the following three novel questions:

(1) in view of the Court's pre-trial case management powers under O 34 r 2(2)(p), (r), O 40A rr 1(1), 5(1), (2) and (3) of the Rules of 2012 (RC) regarding expert witness(es), can the defendant apply for an extension of time from the Court pursuant to O 3 r 5(1) RC to file an expert's report after the commencement of the Trial?;

(2) Mr Bray and Mr Sharpe had each affirmed an affidavit stating, among others, that they understood their duty as experts was to assist the Court on matters within their expertise [as provided in O 40A r 2(1) RC]. In view of the "non-availability" of Mr Bray and Mr Sharpe to testify in this case, whether the duty owed by Mr Bray and Mr Sharpe to the Court pursuant to O 40A r 2(1) RC had been breached; and

(3) if an expert has breached his or her duty to the Court pursuant to O 40A r 2(1) RC, what sanctions can be imposed by the Court?

B. Background

[4] Alstom Services Sdn Bhd had appointed the defendant to, among others, assemble and erect a boiler for "1 x 1000 MW Manjung 4 Coal Fired Power Plant" (Project).

[5] By way of a "Supply/Sub-Contract Work Order" dated 20 March 2013 (Contract), the defendant had appointed the plaintiff to supply manpower and tools for the erection and dismantling of scaffolding in the Project (Works). The defendant would provide scaffolding materials for the Works (Scaffolding Materials).

[6] The Contract provided an estimated amount of RM686,348.75 for the Works. However, by way of a letter dated 9 March 2013, the plaintiff had requested the defendant to increase the contract value of the Works until the completion of the Project [Plaintiff's Request (9 March 2013)]. The defendant did not reply to the plaintiff's Request (9 March 2013).

[7] The defendant had sent a facsimile dated 22 April 2014 to the plaintiff [Defendant's Termination (Contract)]. According to the Defendant's Termination (Contract), among others:

(1) The plaintiff was "herewith instructed to completely demobilise" the plaintiff's team from the site of the Project (Site) with effect from 26 April 2014; and

(2) The plaintiff should return to the defendant all "loaned Personnel Protective Equipment" prior to the departure of the plaintiff's team from the Site.

C. Legal Proceedings

[8] In view of the Defendant's Termination (Contract), on 12 November 2014, This Suit has been filed. In This Suit, the plaintiff has claimed for, among others, a sum of RM8,222,464.69 which had not been paid by the defendant for the Works completed by the plaintiff (Completed Works).

[9] The defendant was initially represented by Messrs Belden with Mr Belden Premaraj A/L Joseph Rajadurai as its learned lead co