Compliance with procedural rules is essential; failure to adhere invalidates appeals.

Introduction

[1] The appellant, a bankrupt, acted in person for his appeal on some bankruptcy matters before us against the decision of the High Court ("HC"). He did not file his written submission, after case management, despite instruction from this Court. He went further. Much to our surprise, he requested a 7-member panel of this Court to hear his appeal, despite not following the instruction to file his written submission.

[2] However, before he could proceed arguing his appeal, the 1st and 2nd respondents raised various procedural objections even before the substantive appeal is heard.

[3] The 1st respondent applied through a notice of motion supported by affidavit to essentially strike out part of the appellant's record of appeal and for certain documents in the appellant's record of appeal to be struck out. The appellant did not reply to this affidavit filed by the 1st respondent.

[4] As if that is not enough for the appellant, the 2nd respondent wrote letters to him raising its preliminary objections to the appeal.

Background Facts

[5] The appellant being the judgment debtor was declared a bankrupt for unpaid debt owing to the 2nd respondent, the bank. He agreed to pay monthly instalments of RM100.00 on the direction of the 1st respondent towards settling his debt. He subsequently applied to go overseas. In response, the 2nd respondent raised the monthly instalments to RM150.00 as a condition to agree to his application to travel overseas.

[6] Thereafter the 1st respondent applied for public examination of the appellant. The learned Deputy Registrar of the HC ("DR") conducted the public examination pursuant to s 17 of the Insolvency Act and r 143 of the Insolvency Rules 2017. After the public examination, the DR maintained that the monthly instalments should remain at RM150.00. The appellant must also serve his statement of income and expenses to the 1st respondent every six months.

[7] The appellant appealed against the actions of the DR to the Judge-in-Chambers (learned HC Judge). The learned HC Judge ("HCJ") decided that the public examination done by the DR was lawful and should not be set aside.

[8] The appellant then filed the Notice of Appeal before this Court, which is now part of the objections by both respondents.

Our Decision

[9] First, we ought to decide on the 2nd respondent's contention that the appeal could not be maintained as the basis of the appeal does not relate to any judgment or order within the meaning of s 67(1) and read with s 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA").

[10] Section 67 (1) of the CJA reads:

The Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order of any High Court in any civil cause or matter, whether made in the exercise of its original or of its appellate jurisdiction, subject nevertheless to this or any other written law regulating the terms and conditions upon which such appeals shall be brought.

[Emphasis Added]

[11] While the relevant part of s 3 of the CJA states:

"decision" means judgment, sentence or order, but does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties;

[12] The 2nd respondent submitted the actions by the DR in conducting the public examination and thereafter requiring the appellant to show his income and expenses every six months did not finally dispose of the rights of the Appellant.

[13] First, following the Federal Court in Kempadang Bersatu Sdn Bhd v. Perkayuan OKS No 2 Sdn Bhd , [2019] 4 MLJ 614, there is a need to take both the above statutory provisions together as pointed out as follows:

[44]... Subsect