Judicial decisions must focus on substantive justice over procedural technicalities, enforcing the principle of hearing cases on their merits.

[1] There are three appeals before us relating to a procedural point on Notice of Appeal. We heard all the three appeals together and allowed the appeals.

[2] The appeals essentially involved application of common sense principles in decision-making process and construction of Rules of (ROC 2012) to attain substantive justice.

[3] It is now well-established that common sense jurisprudence has been a tool for the so called 'reasonable man' in his decision-making process. This jurisprudence has been captured in a number of English decisions as well as the decision of our apex Court in a number of cases in relation to decisionmaking process by the courts. In the case of Alami Vegetable Oil Products Sdn Bhd v. Hafeez Iqbal Oil & Ghee Industries, 2016 MarsdenLR 1097 , the Court of Appeal had this to say:

"... Lord Denning had often reminded us that judicial decision must not be confined to law but also common sense which we these days called as purposive approach and is partly codified. (See s 17A of the Interpretation Acts). At times, without the application of common sense, a just result cannot be achieved. Common sense approach has been adopted in a number of Malaysian judgments."

[See (i) Keng Soon Finance Bhd v. MK Retnam Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor, [1989] 1 MLJ 457; (ii) Comandate Marine Corp v. Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 192]

[4] The ROC 2012, to ensure the merits of the case or appeal are heard to attain substantive justice, has introduced a number of provisions to fortify the principles. Cases now have to be heard on merits and cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of rules unless there are exceptional reasons to do so. For example, O 1A of ROC 2012 asserts:

"ORDER 1A