Contractual obligations under loans must be upheld despite potential disputes over valuations.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court given on 9 August 2016 in dismissing the appellant's application under O 14 of the Rules of 2012 for summary judgment on its claim against the respondents. The appellant and the respondents are the plaintiff and defendants respectively in the proceedings before the High Court.

[2] Before we embark upon a detailed consideration of the contentions that have been raised before us in this appeal, it is necessary to draw attention to one aspect of the proceedings which behoves this Court to dispose of the matter first. Apparently, the record of appeal, which consists of only one volume of documents has more than 300 pages. The respondent, in consequence, raised a preliminary objection to the appellant's appeal contending that Practice Direction No 2 of 2008 had not been complied with by the appellant as the said Practice Direction requires each volume of the record of appeal shall not exceed 100 pages. We would necessarily mention that Practice Direction No 2/2008 has been superseded by Practice Direction No 1 of 2011 with effect from 22 November 2011. Practice Direction No 1 of 2011 stipulates that each volume of a record of appeal shall not exceed 200 pages. However, Practice Direction No 1 of 2011 has been revoked by the present Practice Direction No 1 of 2017 which was issued on 28 February 2017. Nevertheless, since this appeal was filed on 17 August 2016, Practice Direction No 1 of 2011 applies. The learned counsel for the respondents, citing the judgment of this Court in Chuah Tim Lan v. RHB Bank Bhd & Anor, , submitted that, in not complying with the Practice Direction in question, the appellant did so at its own risk and that non-compliance thereof would mean that there was no proper appeal before this Court.

[3] We accept that the appellant did not comply with Practice Direction No 1 of 2011, however, we find that such non-compliance is merely in respect of the number of pages allowed for each volume of the record of appeal whereby the record of appeal filed in respect of the present appeal had exceeded the permissible number of pages prescribed under the said Practice Direction. One thing seems to be clear, that is that, judicial authorities show that practice directions are effected for administrative purposes, but it is trite that once practice directions have been properly and legally issued, they must be complied with [Megat Najmuddin Dato' Seri (Dr) Megat Khas v. Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd, [2002] 1 MLJ 385]. For the Court of Appeal, the President of the Court of Appeal is empowered by r 77 of the Rules of the of Appeal 1994 to issue practice directions. In this case, in our judgment, the record of appeal has exceeded the prescribed number of pages by only 100 pages. The noncompliance in this regard is of a nature which in our opinion is so insignificant and trivial that it cannot be said that the respondents have been prejudiced in any way. There is clearly no substantial miscarriage of justice involved. Moreover, by virtue of r 102 of the Rules of the of Appeal 1994, noncompliance with any rule of practice shall not render any proceedings void unless the Court so directs and indeed we have no reasons whatsoever to so direct. We are also mindful that under O 1A of the Rules of 2012, the Court or a judge shall have regard to the justice of the case and not only to the technical compliance of any rules.

For the reasons that we have given, we would hold that there is no merit in the preliminary objection as such it is dismissed.

[4] With our ruling on the preliminary objection, we shall proceed to consider the appeal. The background to this case is sufficiently set out in the Statement of Claim. So far as the facts relate to the application under appeal, we