Extension of appeal time requires substantial evidence and a justifiable reason; mere financial difficulty is insufficient.

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

Miss Goh Mey Foon acted for the plaintiff while Mr. KB Rajah acted for the second defendant by the name of Yong Koh Tat. The third defendant by the name of Yong Kah Tack was represented by Mr. Abdul Razak Ahmad. The first defendant who had since been wound up was unrepresented. There were two enclosures for adjudication and the parties agreed that these two enclosures be heard together. For these reasons, encls. 29 and 36 were heard simultaneously.

Enclosure 29

This was an application by way of a summons-in-chambers filed by the second defendant on 26 October 1998 for the following prayers:

(a) that the second defendant be given leave for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the SAR dated 15 July 1998 that was handed down in this action:

(b) that the second defendant be given leave to file his notice of appeal within five days from the date of this order;

(c) that the costs of this application be costs in the cause; and

(d) such further order and/or other relief deem fit by this court.

Enclosure 29 was supported by an affidavit of the second defendant that was affirmed on 23 October 1998 and filed on 26 October 1998 as seen in encl. 28. In that affidavit, the second defendant deposed to matters within his knowledge save as otherwise stated. The second defendant referred to the judgment in default of appearance dated 29 November 1997 and the affidavit of substituted service by Md Noor Azam bin Ahamad that was affirmed on 27 November 1997 and the second defendant deposed that he had no knowledge of the advertisement on 15 November 1997 in the STAR newspaper because he did not read the English newspaper. The second defendant deposed that he studied up to Form 2 in the Foon Yew Chinese Secondary School in Johor Bahru and ended his studies in 1964. He deposed that he did not have many English speaking friends who could have told him of the said advertisement. He then referred to the writ of summons and the statement of claim in the present suit and he said that based on the plaintiff's claim against him, he was said to be, at the material time, a mere shareholder and the managing director of the first defendant, namely Chin Foong Holdings Sdn Bhd and according to the second defendant this was not true. The second defendant deposed that he had resigned as a director of the first defendant on 5 January 1993 and ceased being involved in the administration of the first defendant from thereon. The second defendant then referred to the writ of summons and the order dated 15 July 1998 by the SAR and he deposed that a close look at the title of these documents revealed various differences and he was advised and he verily believed that the plaintiff cannot make any amendments without the leave of the court and there was no such application to amend advanced by the plaintiff. The second defendant continued to depose and he said that he only came to know of the judgment in default of appearance dated 29 November 1997 when a bankruptcy notice was served on him at No. 71, Jalan Serampang, Taman Sri Tebrau, 80050 Johor Bahru - his residence. He deposed that when he gave instructions to his former solicitors Messrs Abdul Razak Ahmad & Associates, he was in a state of confusion and shock. He deposed that although he had terminated his services as a director of the first defendant on 5 January 1993 he was informed by the company secretary that the first defendant was wound up on 4 April 1996 and p