GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

On 18 March 2008, at the commencement of the trial, I dismissed the plaintiff's action. But I made no order as to costs.

I shall now give my grounds for dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

In my judgment, the action ought to be dismissed as there was clear non-compliance with the Court's previous case management direction, the non-compliance being of such a nature as to give me the impression that the plaintiff has scant respect for the Court's case management directions and was not serious in prosecuting its claim against the defendant. I shall elaborate.

On 27 April 2005, the learned Judge then, Vincent Ng J (as he then was), in conducting the case management, by agreement of parties, directed that the plaintiff was to file and serve their witness statements at least 21 days before the date of trial. The trial dates that were fixed then were 10 - 13 July 2006. The relevant part of the direction, as recorded in the minutes of the file reads:-

Mahkamah: Ke 10-13/7/06 (Bicara Penuh). Dengan persetujuan kedua-dua pihak, pihak plaintif akan menfailkan (dan menyerahkan) witness statement affidavit sekurang-kurangnya 21 hari sebelum 10/7/06. Pihak defendan melakukan sedemikian 14 hari sebelum 10/7/06. (The words in square brackets are mine.)

However, at the commencement of the trial on 18 March 2008 (the trial dates were earlier postponed twice at the instance of the Court to make way for pre-2000 cases), much to my dismay, this direction was not complied with - and learned counsel for the plaintiff requested for an adjournment so that the plaintiff could comply with the direction. Without the filing and service of the witness statements by the plaintiff, I was not able to proceed with the trial. I consider this non-compliance as a very serious matter. The dates of the trial were fixed a long time ago - on 27 April 2005, and this was almost three years ago! The direction in question was also given on that same day. Hence, the plaintiff had more than ample time to prepare the witness statements. The non-compliance merely goes to show a blatant disregard for the Court's direction on the part of the plaintiff and a sheer lack of interest in the proceeding.

When asked to explain for the non-compliance, the first reason given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Cik Harjinder Kaur Gill, for the non-compliance was that the original dates of the trial were deferred by the Court to 7 May 2007 via the Court's letter dated 24 April 2006. In my judgment, the fact that the trial dates were deferred cannot be a valid excuse for the non-compliance. The Court's direction of 27 April 2005, in the absence of any subsequent direction to the contrary, must still be complied with, regardless of the deferment. Indeed, counsel knew that this excuse was a lame one. For, at the commencement of the trial, when subsequently questioned further by me, the learned counsel conceded that the deferment of the trial dates by the Court was not a valid excuse for the non-compliance. This concession by counsel is recorded in the notes of the proceeding as follows:

Peguam Plaintif:

The last directions were given on 27-4-2008 where parties were directed to file and to serve witness statements. Plaintiff was to file and serve at least 21 days before 10-7-2006. Defendant was to serve at least 14 days before 10-7-2006. Plaintiff has not done so. Because in April 2006 there was a letter dated b24-4-2006 informing parties that the hearing was adjourned to 7-5-2007 (till 10-5-2007) to make way for a pre-2000 case. On 14-4-2007 there was another letter from Court adjourning the trial to 17-20 March 2008.

Judge:

The adjournments are immaterial. The directions of 27-4-2005 still need to be complied with?

Peguam Plaintif:

Yes.

The other explanation given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff for the non-compliance was that there were amendments to the statement of defence subsequent to the direction. With respect, this could not have been the reason for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document