The court affirmed that procedural non-compliance in appeals does not invalidate proceedings unless substantial prejudice is shown, emphasizing the importance of assessors' written opinions under the Land Acquisition Act.

[1] Both parties have filed applications to derail the other in their appeals before the Court of Appeal. The appellant in its motion in encl 18 had prayed to extend the time to serve the record of appeal by one day for it was one day late in serving on the respondent, though filed within time. The other prayer in the same motion is to strike out the Notice of Cross-Appeal filed by the respondent.

[2] The respondent on the other hand had filed an application in encl 54 to strike out the Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant principally on ground that the Notice of Appeal does not disclose the questions of law for the appeal. There were other grounds for striking out the Notice of Appeal and these will be considered below.

At The High Court

[3] The High Court sitting as a Land Reference Court had increased the amount of compensation with respect to part of the respondent's land that had been compulsorily acquired by the government.

[4] The High Court had granted compensation under the heads of severance and injurious affection which was not granted by the Land Administrator. Diagram 1 below shows the Award of the High Court as opposed to that of the Land Administrator and the increase in compensation as follows:

[5] Aggrieved by the said decision, the Land Administrator had filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. The company, Tanah Sutera Development Sdn Bhd, whose land had been acquired did not file a Notice of Appeal but instead filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal.

Before The Court Of Appeal

[6] The respondent before us had filed a motion to strike out the appeal, presumably under r 104 Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ("RCA") and the relevant rr 102 - 104 are set out below as follows:

"PART IV

Effect of Non-Compliance

102. Non-compliance with Rules not to render proceedings void.

Non-compliance with any of these Rules, or with any rule of practice for the time being in force, shall not render any proceedings void unless the Court or a Judge shall so direct, but such proceedings may be set aside either wholly or in part as irregular, or amended, or otherwise dealt with in such manner and upon such terms as the Court or Judge shall think fit.

103. Application to set aside for irregularity when allowed.

No application to set aside any proceedings for irregularity shall be allowed unless made within reasonable time, nor if the party applying has taken any fresh step after knowledge of the irregularity.

104. Objections of irregularity.

When an application is made to set aside proceedings for irregularity, the several objections intended to be insisted upon shall be stated in the summons or notice of motion."

[7] The grounds for striking out the Notice of Appeal are spelt out as follows:

(1) That the Notice of Appeal was defective as it did not set out the questions of law for the Court of Appeal to answer;

(2) That the appeal is barred by s 40D(3) and s 49(1) proviso in Land Acquisition Act 1960 (" LAA ");

(3) That the appellant was 1 day late in serving its Appeal Record on the respondent's solicitors;

(4) That its Memorandum of Appeal is defective for n