The court clarified that procedural non-compliance does not bar an appeal if it does not lead to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

[1] The 2nd defendant, Yu Gui ("the appellant") appealed against the decision made on 4 January 2013 by the Judge in Chambers to allow an appeal from the assessment by the Senior Assistant Registrar on 20 September 2012.

[2] On 20 August 2009, the High Court had set aside and dissolved ex parte orders for interim injunction granted on 29 June 2009 and ordered damages occasioned thereby be assessed by the Deputy Registrar and paid by Jeffery Law Siew Su, Ng Siew Hong and Mastika Jaya Timber Sdn Bhd, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd respondents respectively ("the respondents"), to the appellant.

[3] The respondents had obtained on 29 June 2009 by an ex parte application against Jin Chenji, Yu Gui, Lee Chien-Jung, Rich Efficient Wood Industries Sdn Bhd, PDZ Shipping Agency (Kuching) Sdn Bhd, as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants (collectively "the defendants"), interim injunctions which provided for:

a. the return of two containers of veneer the subject matter of the dispute;

b. the appellant, Jin Chenji and Lee Chien-Jung to pay Rich Efficient Wood Industries Sdn Bhd's ("the company") money from the sale of goods of the company into account of the company;

c. the appellant, Jin Chenji and Lee Chien-Jung not to transfer or remove or dissipate their assets out of jurisdiction;

d. the disclosure of assets of the appellant, Jin Chenji and Lee Chien-Jung;

e. cross-examination of the appellant, Jin Chenji and Lee Chien- Jung on their affidavits; and

f. the appellant, Jin Chenji and Lee Chien-Jung not to leave Sarawak until conclusion of their cross-examination, etc.

[4] The company was the 4th defendant, in which the 1st, 2nd (the appellant herein) and 3rd defendant were shareholders. The 5th defendant was the shipping transporter. The company was set up in 2009 and was involved in the business of production and sale of veneer. It rented premises with 13 factory machineries under a Tenancy Agreement dated 3 March 2009. Dispute arose over the sale of two containers of goods.

Preliminary Objection After Appellant's Submissions

[5] After counsel for the appellant completed his submissions, counsel for the respondents stood up to submit. He raised preliminary objections that the First Supplementary Record of Appeal was filed out of time and the Second Supplementary Record of Appeal was served in October just before the appeal, both without leave of the Court.

[6] A written summary of the respondents' preliminary objections, and a section on preliminary objections had been included in the written submissions dated 6 August 2013, had been filed before the hearing of the appeal. The grounds were that:

a. the Record of Appeal was in breach of the mandatory r 18(4) of Rules of the of Appeal 1994 and Practice Direction No 2 of 1985 because, inter alia,

(a) Part A thereof did not contain the written judgment or grounds of decision or order of the learned High Court Judge;

(b) Part B thereof did not have the notes of the proceedings of the appeal before the learned High Court Judge; and

(c) Part C thereof, which is supposed to contain the documentary exhibits, contained the parties' submissions and not the exhibits.

b. The Supplementary Record of Appeal dated 16 May 2013 was out of the time prescribed under r 18(7A) of Rules of the of Appeal 1994.

c. There was no application by the appellant for extension of time and no affidavit to explain the delay.

[7] The Supplementary Records of Appeal corrected the defects summarised at para [6] a above. The objection was therefore essentially that the two supplementary Records of Appeal were filed without the leave of the Court.

[8] Thus, but for the absence of