Failure to comply with court directions can lead to dismissal of a suit without the option to refile, emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence.

JUDGMENT

Rohatul Akmar Abdullah SCJ:

A. Introduction

[1] Plaintiff has filed an appeal against the decision of this court that dismissed the Plaintiff's application (encl 31) to file Witness Statements (WS) of his witnesses before 14 October 2024 and to strike off the Defendant's WS filed two days before the trial, with cost.

[2] The application was heard on the 16 October 2024 which was the first trial date of this case as the Notis Permohonan and Afidavit Sokongan Plaintiff (ASP) were only filed on 15 October 2024 at 11:19:58 am. The Notis Permohonan was filed under O 92 r 4 of ROC 2012.

[3] A week later, on 24 October 2024 the Plaintiff has through e-review sought clarification on the decision at paragraph [1] above. This court has made further order under O 92 ROC 2012 that the Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with no liberty to file afresh. The Plaintiff is appealing on this decision too.

B. Background

[4] Chronology of the management of this case (CM) is extracted from the Case Management System:

(a) the first instruction to file pre-trial documents was given on 25 January 2024 and next CM was on 6 March 2024;

(b) on 6 March 2024, the Plaintiff's solicitor informed the court that they have just received the documents from their client and asked for another date to file documents. The court fixed on 17 April 2024 for the next CM. Here the Plaintiff was given almost three months to comply with the first instruction;

(c) on 17 April 2024, the Plaintiff's solicitor appeared through e-review saying that they needed more time to file the documents. Next CM was fixed on 15 May 2024 for the same purpose;

(d) on 15 May 2024, the Defendant's solicitor sought a date to file his documents as the Defendant just received the documents from the Plaintiff on the 14 May 2024. Next CM fixed on 12 June 2024. This is the third time the court allowed the Plaintiff to file the documents out of time;

(e) on 12 June 2024, in the presence of both counsels, the Plaintiff has filed Bundle of Documents and other pre-trial document on the 12 June 2024. In the meanwhile, the Defendant's solicitor has asked the court's permission for the WS of both parties to be filed two weeks before the trial. That would be on or before 2 October 2024. This was allowed. The trial dates were also fixed on 16, 17 and 18 October 2024;

(f) on 31 July 2024, the date was fixed by way of e-review, for further direction on the 19 issues to be tried filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's solicitor appeared only in the morning. The Defendant's solicitor was present until the minute was locked at 3:57:53 pm. The Plaintiff's solicitor without any courtesy to inform this court has disappeared leaving only the Defendant's solicitor and the Judge in the e-review. Extraction from the minutes on 31 July 2024:

'Tarikh: 31 Julai 2024

Peguam Defendan 1: Dengan izin Puan. Kent Tan hadir bagi pihak Defendan.

Peguam Plaintif 1: Dengan izin Puan Hakim, Vinson Tay bagi pihak Plaintif.

Peguam Plaintif 1: Hari ini ditetapkan untuk CM bagi penentuan samada kesemua isu-isu dibicarakan (Kandungan 11) patut dikekalkan selepas penelitian oleh Puan Hakim.

Peguam Plaintif 1: Tarikh bicara telah ditetapkan pada 16 hingga 18 Oktober 2024

Mahkamah: Tidak perlu 19 isu untuk dibicarakan.

Saya akan kembali jam 12 tengahari.

Pihak-pihak boleh bincang lagi.

Mahkamah: Kand 11,

sama ada isu di perenggan 5, 6 dan 7 perlu?

apa beza perenggan 1, 12 dan 13?

perenggan 14 hingga 19 - jelaskan sama ada isu atau fakta dan soalan yang perlu ditanya semasa bicara?

Peguam Defendan 1: dengan izin Puan Hakim, terdapat jumlah 19 isu dalam L. 11.

Peguam Defendan 1: antaranya, isu 1-12 merupakan isu Plaintif.

Peguam Defendan 1: isu 13-19 merupakan isu Defendan.

Peguam Defendan 1: Defendan bersetuju dengan Mahkamah bahawa isu 1, 12 dan 13 boleh digabungkan sebagai 1 isu sahaja.

Peguam Defendan 1: Defendan akan cadangkan supaya 3 isu tersebut digabung sebagai 'sama ada Defendan pernah melakukan fitnah terhadap Plaintif'.

Peguam Defendan 1: bagi isu 15, 16