TONG KIM SOO vs TIRAI PROSPEKTIF SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 MarsdenLR 1528

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TONG KIM SOO – Appellant
Versus
TIRAI PROSPEKTIF SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Charlotte Diana Williams ,Respondent Advocate: Deborah J Kaur

Table of Content
1. the court emphasized strict adherence to appeal deadlines as outlined in procedural rules. (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 20)
2. mandatory rules governing appeal processes. (Para 2)
3. appellant's procedural non-compliance highlighted. (Para 5)
4. a clear rationale is required for granting extensions, particularly addressing merit assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 16)
5. discretion for time extension must consider merits. (Para 14)
6. merit of case and potential prejudice should be primary considerations in extension applications. (Para 19 , 21)

[1] We heard the Appellant's (Defendant at the Shah Alam Session Court) appeal against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("the learned JC") in dismissing the Appellant's application in encl 5 for extension of time to file and serve Record of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal. The application was made to regularise the appeal process against the decision of the Session Court which granted the Respondent (Plaintiff) for summary judgment on 1 August 2017.

[2] The learned JC had considered the Appellant's Notice of Application, Affidavit in Support affirmed by the Appellant's Solicitor and the Respondent's Affidavit in Reply affi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 MarsdenLR 1528

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYATONG KIM SOO – AppellantVersusTIRAI PROSPEKTIF SDN BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (7)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TONG KIM SOO – Appellant
Versus
TIRAI PROSPEKTIF SDN BHD – Respondent