COURT OF APPEAL KUALA LUMPUR
YEO YOO TEIK – Appellant
Versus
JEMAAH PENGADILAN SEWA PULAU PINANG & ANOR – Respondent
[1] In this application for an extension of time to file the record of appeal, the affidavit in support affirmed by the applicant's solicitor states that the applicant had failed to obtain such an extension from the Registrar of this Court as Practice Direction 2/91 had not been complied with. That Practice Direction provides that a request for such an extension must be made to the Registrar within a week of the filing of the notice of appeal.
[2] The applicant filed his notice of appeal on 16 February 1995 and the request for extension should have been made on or before 23 February 1995. This was not done. The applicant's solicitors only made such a request on 16 March 1995 a month after the notice was filed. The only reason given for the delay is that a new clerk had taken over the conduct of the file on 16 March 1995 and it was then discovered that no request for extension had been made under Practice Direction 2/91. A written request was immediately faxed to the Registry the same day.
[3] Practice Direction 2/91 has been especially framed to regulate the procedure governing the filing of appeal records. Although it does not have the force of law, no
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.