Nallini Pathmanthan FCJ:

[1] This appeal raises a conflict between two seemingly contradictory principles which the courts need to balance. Between the policy of avoiding the opening of the floodgates to endless litigation by upholding finality in judicial decisions on the one hand, and on the other, protecting the sacrosanct rights of an affected person to be accorded the right to be heard in his own defence; which should prevail? Ultimately based on the particular facts of the instant appeal, we decided in the interests of the affected person, the appellant before us, whose livelihood would be threatened by the order obtained by the 1st respondent against him in absentia. We append the reasons for our decision below.

Salient Background Facts

[2] At the material time, the appellant before us, Dr Lourdes Dava Raj Curuz Durai Raj ('Dr Lourdes') was the Chief Medical Service Officer and person in charge of Assunta Hospital while the 1st respondent before us, Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah ('Dr Milton') was then a Visiting Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist at the same hospital.

[3] The 2nd respondent before us is the Malaysian Medical Council ('MMC'), a statutory body established pu