Zaki Tun Azmi CJ:

Introduction

[1] These appeals concern the interpretation and application of O 6 r 7(2) and 7(2A) of the Rules of the High 1980 ("RHC"). Related to that is the manner in which O 1A RHC is to be applied.

[2] The two appeals before us relating to the said issues are Rayuan Sivil No 02-42-2008 (W) (hereinafter referred to as Appeal A) and Rayuan Sivil No 02-43-2008 (W) (hereinafter referred to as Appeal B). The parties rely on submissions and bundle of authorities submitted in regard to Appeal A. The issues in both appeals arose because both writs from which the appeals originated were extended even though no attempts were made to serve either of them on the appellant. The validity and effect of these renewals are what is ought to be impugned.

[3] The following question was therefore posed to us:

Whether the requirement of showing such efforts that have been made to effect service of a writ under O 6 r 7(2A) RHC is a mandatory prerequisite to the exercise of discretion under O 6 r 7(2) RHC.

[4] During the course of the hearing, we allowed a consequential question to be posed and it is as follows:

In the event of such a failure to comply with the prerequisites of O 6 r 7(2A) , whether O 1A can be invoked in order to cure that failure.

Facts

[5] The facts are as follows:

[6] The respondent filed a writ of summons at the Singapore High Court ("the Singapore writ/action") on 29 September 2000. Simultaneously with that, on the same date, the respondent also filed another writ containing almost identical pleadings and cause of action at the High Court at Shah Alam ("the Shah Alam writ/action"). A third writ was filed not much later ie, on 13 July 2001 at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur ("the Kuala Lumpur writ/action"), again, containing similar pleadings and cause of action. The Singapore writ was served on the appellant on 22 February 2001. On the other hand, the Shah Alam and the Kuala Lumpur writs were kept away from the knowledge of the appellant. The appellant was totally unaware of these two other actions.

[7] The Singapore action proceeded with the hearing before the High Court judge who referred it to his senior assistant registrar for case management. It was only before the senior assistant registrar that the respondent, in answer to a query raised by the senior assistant registrar, disclosed that the respondent had filed two other actions in Malaysia. The Singapore senior assistant registrar directed the respondent to withdraw the Singapore writ and to serve the Shah Alam writ within six weeks of that direction which was made on 15 May 2001.

[8] The respondent had, of course without the knowledge of the appellant, sought and obtained orders from the senior assistant registrar of the High Court at Shah Alam to renew the validity of the writs of summons before their expiry. The senior assistant registrar of the High Court at Shah Alam granted a renewal of the Shah Alam writ pursuant to the application filed on 20 March 2001. Subsequently, pursuant to another application filed on 4 September 2001, a second extension was granted on 6 December 2001. In other words, two extensions were obtained ex parte.

[9] In the meanwhile, the respondent appealed to the judge in chambers (in Singapore) against the senior assistant registrar's orders and subsequently to the Singapore Court of Appeal. The Singapore High Court as well as the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the stay order by the Singapore senior assistant registrar was affirmed. The decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal was made on 19 February 2002. It must be noted that by the time this order was made, about 16 months had lapsed from the filing of the Shah Alam action.

[10] The Shah Alam writ was only served on the appellant's solicitors on 27 March 2002, although the solicitors had undertaken to accept service of the writ immediately after the Singapore Court of Appeal had ordered service of the writ on the appellant on 15 May 2001. According to