An ambiguous Notice of Appeal against multiple High Court orders is defective; each order requires a separate notice to ensure clarity and adherence to procedural rules.

[1] This is the appellant's appeal against the orders of dismissal by the High Court at Kuala Lumpur in respect of three notices of motion. The first notice of motion dated 5 September 2012 (encl 11) was to set aside a winding-up order. The second notice of motion, dated 14 September 2012 (encl 16), was to transfer the case to the Shah Alam High Court pursuant to O 11 r 4 of the Rules of 2012. The appellant also had filed in the High Court another notice of motion dated 18 September 2012 (encl 19) to set aside the same winding-up order.

[2] On 18 September 2012, the High Court dismissed encl 11; and on 10 October 2012, the same High Court dismissed encls 19 and 16. The appellant alleged that the three motions were dismissed without giving the appellant a fair hearing.

Backgrounds Facts

[3] The background to the action before the High Court, and this appeal is as follows.

[4] On 27 August 2009, a Civil Application No: 08-205-207(W) was made to the Federal Court for costs pursuant to the Federal Court's dismissal of the appellant's application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against a decision of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No: W-02-567-1997 . The Federal Court allowed the application and ordered the sum of RM10,000.00 as costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

[5] The appellant failed to pay the costs to the respondent as so ordered by the Federal Court.

[6] On 12 March 2012, a statutory notice of demand under s 218(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1965 was served on the appellant.

[7] In June 2012, the respondent commenced a winding-up proceedings against the appellant. At the hearing of the petition on 8 August 2012, the appellant did not appear and the High Court granted the winding-up order sought by the respondent.

[8] On 5 September 2012, one Mr Kok Kon Sung, the appellant's Managing Director, filed an application to set aside the winding-up order, as well as to ask for the Federal Court's Order of 27 August 2009 (that awarded costs to the respondent) be set aside and all proceedings be stayed.

[9] On 18 September 2012, the learned High Court Judge, after hearing parties, ruled that the application was misconceived and, accordingly, struck off the application.

[10] But, Mr Kok Kon Sung did not stop there. At 12.44pm on the same day, ie, on 18 September 2012, he filed an identical application to once again set aside the winding-up order along with other reliefs. In addition to that application, Mr Kok Kon Sung also filed an application to transfer the proceedings to the High Court of Shah Alam. Both applications were struck off by the learned High Court Judge on 10 October 2012.

[11] In her brief judgment, which is recorded in the notes of proceedings of 10 October 2012, the learned High Court Judge, in dismissing the two applications, said as follows:

"On a previous occasion, ie, on 18 September 2012, Mr Kok made an identical application save for one prayer, and having heard the same, I dismissed it and explained to Mr Kok that the application was misconceived as it is not possible to set aside a winding-up order in the manner he seeks. Neither is it possible to transfer the proceedings to Shah Alam, unless the OR so desires. I further pointed out to Mr Kok that, as the respondent, had been wound up, only the OR could appear on behalf of the wound-up company. In other words, Mr Kok has no 'voice' or presence which this Court can consider for purposes of any such application.

...

The OR is present and indicates that he is not agreeable to the transfer. I have perused the application and it appears to the Court that this application has to be dismissed because:

(a) it has no legal basis under the Companies Act 1965 ;

(b) res judicata or issue estoppels comes into play as an identical application was filed previously;

Again, I must reiterate that I hav