James Foong J:

Introduction

Enclosure 39 is an application of the plaintiff to reinstate his writ of summons and amended statement of claim.

The two defendants in this case objected to this application.

After hearing arguments from both sides, I dismissed this plaintiff's application with cost.

Below are my grounds for doing so.

Chronology Of Events

The plaintiff filed a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim against the 1st defendant on 6 January 1999. On 27 September 1999, the 1st defendant took out 3rd party notice against another who was subsequently made the 2nd defendant in this case.

Summons for direction was filed by the plaintiff on 14 July 1999 and from 21 March 2000 right up to 21 September 2004 the case was managed by this court. And on 21 June 2004, this court fixed 21 and 22 September 2004 for trial. Counsel present at this case management date made no objection to these trial dates.

On 21 August 2004, the plaintiff's counsel wrote to this court requesting a postponement on the ground that the plaintiff has to accompany his son to the United Kingdom to enter a medical faculty in the University of London. This application was rejected by this court.

When this case came up for hearing on 21 September 2004, the plaintiff was absent. Both the defendants were present. So were their counsel. The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Rajadevan, who was present in court, informed that his client has left for overseas and is unable to attend this hearing. He then made an oral application for a postponement based on the same ground previously advanced in his letter of 21 August 2004. Counsel for both defendants objected to this request for postponement. Finding that the reason forwarded by the plaintiff requesting for postponement unreasonable, I disallowed this oral application. This was based on the following reasons:

First, realizing that his earlier request for postponement was rejected the plaintiff still absent himself on the day of trial. Second, the task of accompanying his son to the United Kingdom could have been undertaken by someone else or by him personally at an earlier date so that he could return to attend the trial. Third, accompanying a child, who is of mature age, to study in the United Kingdom, whether in a medical faculty or otherwise, is not a necessity. There are numerous students these days who travel on their own to pursue their tertiary education overseas, unaccompanied by anyone. Fourth, this is a pre 2000 case. The Chief Justice has not only given, but has constantly reminded the courts throughout the country, to give priority to dispose off cases registered before the year 2000. And after intense case management, this case was finally set down for trial with all relevant documents to be tendered agreed upon by the parties. Fifth, two clear days have been set aside for this trial and the plaintiff has full knowledge of this. A postponement would incur substantial loss, both as to time and man power, just to accommodate the plaintiff so that he could have his way.

After the plaintiffs counsel's oral application for postponement was refused, this court ordered the plaintiff's counsel to commence presentation of the plaintiff's case. Mr. Rajadevan informed this court that since the plaintiff himself is the only witness, he could not proceed. Accordingly, I dismissed the plaintiff's case with cost.

Analysis Of encl. 39

The plaintiff then ar