Arifin Zakaria JCA:

These five appeals arose from the decision of the High Court in petitions Nos. D2-28-187-90, D2-28-192-90, D2-28-197-90 & D2-28-202-90.

For the purpose of these appeals the following facts were not disputed. Woodsville Sdn. Bhd., the appellant/petitioner in W-02-438-00 is the common petitioner in the 4 petitions ( " the petitioner " ). The petitioner is a nominee company of one Kuok Khoon Hwong also known as Peter Kuok. On 9 June 1994, the High Court ordered the 4 companies to be wound up and at the same time turned down the application of the 4 respondents in appeal No. W-02-438-00 for a voluntary winding up of the 4 companies. Mustapha Mohamed and Gong Wee Ning from Messrs. Coopers & Lybrand were duly appointed as liquidators of the 4 companies ( " the liquidators " ). Subsequent thereto by summons in chambers the liquidators applied for leave to resign from the office of liquidators of the 4 companies. The petitioner in the 4 petitions in turn applied for the removal of the liquidators. The applications by the liquidators and the petitioner in petitions Nos. D2-28-187-90, D2-28-192-90, D2-28-197-90 and D2-28-202-90 were ordered to be heard together. The relevant order of the court is found at pp. 28 to 35 of the Record of Appeal. On 31 May 2000 the High Court dismissed with costs both the applications by the petitioner and the liquidators.

The petitioner and the liquidators were dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned trial judge and appealed against the said decision. The appeals came up for hearing before us on 24 February 2004, and at the inception Mr. Wong Kian Kheong learned counsel for the 1st respondent in appeal No. W-02-438-00 and for the appellants for appeals Nos. W-02-457-00, W-02-458-00, W-02-459-00 and W-02-460-00 raised a preliminary objection against the notice of appeal dated 26 June 2000 filed herein by the petitioner.

The basis for the objection is contained in the letter of 18 February 2004. It is contended that no consolidation of the 4 petitions was ever made by the High Court. He contended that on 26 October 1996, the court had merely ordered that the removal applications made by the petitioner ( " the removal applications " ) be heard together with the 4 applications filed by the liquidators for resignations ( " the resignation applications " ). He said the parties at the hearing of the removal applications merely agreed amongst counsel for all the parties that the decision of the removal application in the first petition will be binding on all similar applications filed in the second, third and fourth petitions. This he said is evident from the judgment of the learned judge dated 31 May 2000. In the above circumstances, he contended the petitioner ought to have filed and served 4 separate notices of appeal for Tien Ik Enterprises Sdn. Bhd., Tien Ik Credit Sdn. Bhd., Giltspur Holdings Sdn. Bhd. and Tien Ik Sdn. Bhd. ( " TIESB, TICSB, GHSB and TISB " ) appealing against the decision of the High Court of 31 May 2000.

In the result he submitted the appellant has not brought a valid appeal on behalf of TIESB, TICSB. GHSB and TISB against the said decision. In support of his submission he relied on the following:

(a) rule 5 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994;

(b) Lee Lan v. Lim Yoon Loy [1991] 3 CLJ 2393; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 251; and

(c) Gurbachan Singh v. Seagrott & Campbell (No. 2) ; [1962] MLJ 370.

On 24 February 2004 after hearing submissions on the preliminary objection, we adjourned the matter, to enable parties to put in written submissions. The parties have since put in their written submissions for our consideration. Having considered both the oral and written submissions we now give our decision on the preliminary objection.

It is not in dispute that only one notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the petitioner which reads:

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA

(BAHAGIAN RAYUAN)

RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02-438-2000

ANTARA

WOODSVILLE SDN. BHD PERAYU

DAN

1. TIEN I