Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

[1] I case managed this case for trial and I vigorously applied O. 34 r. 4(2)(f) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC") and O. 35A r. 1 and r. 2 of the RHC. Briefly, I ordered the parties to furnish the reports of their medical experts and to deliver their medical experts' reports by the next case management date. I too ordered the parties to prepare and exchange their witnesses statements in affidavit forms which must necessarily include the witnesses statements of their medical experts.

[2] The parties were most unhappy with my case management directions. They now sought to convince me that in so far as their medical experts were concerned, they should be given a free hand to decide whether they should furnish and deliver their medical experts' reports and, consequently, they ought not to be directed to prepare and exchange the witnesses statements of their medical experts. They preferred their medical experts to be subpoenaed and to attend court in order to testify and tender their medical reports. They preferred the conventional method.

[3] I am mindful that the orders of this court should be obeyed by the parties. Any interruption of the trial process constitutes a serious and direct threat to the administration of justice. It is an accepted law and it is the law that the court has the power to punish as contempt of court any party who interrupts the trial process. It is an inherent power that cannot be taken away by statute (Ex p Pater [1864] 5 B & S 299; R v. Lefroy [1873] LR 8 QB 134; Re Regina and Monette [1975] 64 DLR (3d) 470 at 474; R v. Dunning [1979] 50 CC (2d) 296; Canadian Broadcasting Corpn v. Cordeau [1979] 101 DLR (3d) 24; and R. v Metal Trades Employers' Association, ex p Amalgamated Engineering Union Australian Section [1950-51] 82 CLR 208, 241-3). In the words of the great judge by the name of Lord Denning MR in Morris v. Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114 at 122, [1970] 1 All ER 1079 at 1081:-

The phrase 'contempt in the face of the court' has a quaint old-fashioned ring about it; but the importance of it is this: of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in these courts. The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it, strike at the very foundations of our society. To maintain law and order, the judges have, and must have power at once to deal with those who offend against it. It is a great power - a power instantly to imprison a person without a trial - but it is a necessary power.

[4] Over the years, I have always exercised caution and will not exercise my contempt powers on the spur of the moment. Lord Goddard CJ in Parashuram Detaran Shamdasani v. King - Emperor [1945] AC 264 at 270 (PC) had this to say of the contempt power:-

.... a power which a court must, of necessity, possess; its usefulness depends upon the wisdom and restraint with which it is used ....

[5] I was attracted by the legal arguments of the parties and I proceeded forthwith and listened to their arguments in regard to the legal ramifications of O. 34 r. 4 (2)(f) of the RHC and O. 35A r. 1 and r. 2 of the RHC. I must express my gratitude to the counsel on all sides who have submitted well and so, indirectly, assisted in the development of the law in this country. I was prepared to vary the directions which I gave when I first case managed this case and this was certainly permissible under r. 6 of O. 34 of the RHC.

[6] For convenience, I shall now reproduce these two provisions of the RHC. Order 34 r. 4(2)(f) of the RHC state as follows:-

Order 34

Pre-trial Case Management

4 First pre-trial conference (O. 34 r. 4)

(1) Where the parties to an action appear in person or by an advocate on the return date appearing in form 63 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first pre-trial conference'), then the Judge to whom the action has been assigned shall, after conferring with them, make such orders and give such directions as to the future