Back
2010 MarsdenLR 1335
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SANG LEE COMPANY SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MUNUSAMY KARUPPIAH – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 02(I)-16-2009(W)]
The court reaffirmed the necessity for compliance with procedural rules in amending court orders, emphasizing the power to rectify clerical errors post-judgment.
Headnote:(A) Rules of High Court 1980 - Order 42 rule 8 - Order 20 rule 11 - Appeal involving alleged breach of contract and injunctions - The Court of Appeal erred by not considering the lack of compliance with Order 42 rule 8, leading to errors in the sealed order. The defendants’ objections were disregarded, failing to reflect the true intent of the order pronounced. The High Court had properly allowed amendment of the order to correct misrepresentations. (Paras 3-10)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court's power to rectify clerical mistakes even post-judgment is affirmed per Order 20 rule 11. (Paragraph 8)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendants over alleged unauthorized actions on disputed land. The High Court initially granted an ad interim injunction, leading to procedural disputes over its sealing and amendment.(Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The amendment of the sealed order was to correct its terms to align with what was actually pronounced by the court and did not alter the original order. (Paras 7-10)
Issues: Whether procedural compliance under Order 42 rule 8 was necessary for modifying an earlier court order. (Paragraph 1)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that failure to adhere to procedural rules regarding the sealing of orders undermines the authenticity of court records; amendments serve to correct errors that reflect the pronounced intention of the court.(Paras 6-10)
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal and disputes between parties. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court of appeal's failure to recognize dissent regarding procedures. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. clarification on the powers of the court to amend orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal which allowed the respondent's appeal against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur dated 23 May 2007. Before the High Court, the appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff. We shall refer to the parties as they were before the High Court. We heard this appeal on 22 February 2010 wherein we had allowed this appeal by the defendants. We now give our reasons in arriving at our decision.
Background Facts
[2] The relevant background facts leading to the present appeal by the defendants may be summarized as follows:
(a) On 11 May 2006 the plaintiff filed a writ of summons and statement of claim against the defendants for alleged breach of contract.
(b) The defendants filed a statement of defence and a counter claim dated 12 June 2006 against the plaintiff alleging inter alia, that the documents and purported contract relied on by the plaintiff were forged documents and that the plaintiff has also trespassed on the land owned by the first defendant.
(c) The plaintiff then filed an inter partes application dated 11 May 2006 for an interlocutory injunction against the defendants for an order that the defendants, be restrained from taking any steps in any form or manner whatsoever whether in their own capacity or officers and/or agents from entering into any contract and/or allowing any person other than the plaintiff to cut and/or tap and/or dispose of all trees on the land belonging to the first defendant ("encl 3").
(d) Enclosure 3 was scheduled to be heard on 27 June 2006. In the meantime, there were exchanges of affidavits between both parties.
(e) On the first hearing date of encl 3 on 27 June 2006 the matter came before the learned Judicial Commissioner Noor Azian bt Shaari ("JC1") of the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Division NO 7 ("High Court Civil 7"). The defendants' counsel informed the Court that they were ready to proceed. However, the plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that they still wanted to reply further to the defendants' affidavits and applied for adjournment. The Court then granted the plaintiff time to reply and fixed encl 3 for hearing on 26 July 2006.
(f) After the Court had granted the plaintiffs request for adjournment, the plaintiff orally requested for an ad interim injunction to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of encl 3. The plaintiff gave an undertaking as to damages. This oral application for ad interim injunction was objected to by the defendants.
(g) After hearing the parties, the Court granted an ad interim injunction pending the disposal of encl 3 to preserve the status quo, on the following terms:
Nothing to be done on the related land until encl 3 is disposed and subject to the undertaking as to damages.
(h) The plaintiff prepared the draft order as if the Court had already made a decision on encl 3 (which was adjourned) instead of an ad interim order to maintain status quo only. The defendants contended that what the plaintiff had drafted was totally different from what was pronounced by the Court on 27 June 2006.
(i) Upon receipt of the draft ad interim order, the defendants' counsel immediately informed the plaintiff's counsel on the same day of their objections and simultaneously wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar with a copy to the judge's secretary of the dispute as to the terms of the draft ad interim order dated 27 June 2006. In that same letter the defendants' counsel sought an appointment with the Deputy Registrar or with the judge pursuant to O 42 r 8, Rules of the High 1980 ("RHC 1980") to sort out the terms of the ad interim order dated 27 June 2006.
(j) Despite requests fo
