Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3436
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
FGV PLANTATIONS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MYEG SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-63-01/2025]
Parties must adhere to prescribed procedural timelines set forth in statutory rules; failure to comply without credible justification results in dismissal of applications and potential prejudice to judicial integrity.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Procedural law - Parties cannot decide their timelines to comply with prescribed rules, which have statutory force. - Dismissal of defendant's late application for leave to file a defence as they failed to enter appearance within prescribed period and did not provide cogent reasons for delay - Plaintiff entitled to seek compliance with procedural law - Proper judicial process necessitates timely compliance and rigor in submissions. (Paras 2, 24, 32, 49)
(B) Dismissal of Enclosure 6 - The defendant's Notice to Produce was filed out of time and improperly, not entitled to take any steps without leave post - appearance deadline - Struck out by consent. (Paras 43, 44)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and defendant engaged in litigation over delayed processing of temporary work permits, with payment disputes for services rendered. The defendant failed to comply with the entry of appearance within the set timeline, making their application for late compliance dubious and unsupported by valid reasons.
Findings of Court:
The defendant's excuses for delay were vague and unsupported; hence the application was dismissed in light of procedural requirements that uphold judicial fairness and certainty. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to deadlines.
Issues: Whether the defendant provided sufficient justification for delays in compliance with procedural rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that procedural non-compliance undermines judicial integrity and warned against allowing parties to set their timelines. The absence of credible justification for delay resulted in a rationale against extending time for compliance.
Result: Enclosure 7 dismissed; costs of RM6,000.00 awarded to the plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's failure to comply with timelines. (Para 3 , 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 3. procedural law and compliance essentials. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. background facts regarding permit renewals. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. rules on late appearance and the consequences. (Para 19 , 32 , 39) |
| 6. court discretion and factors influencing it. (Para 26 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. importance of procedural adherence in litigation. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 8. dismissal of application and costs implications. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 9. litigation outcomes based on procedural missteps. (Para 43 , 45) |
| 10. conclusion emphasizing procedural compliance. (Para 49) |
Parties Cannot Arrogate Unto Themselves Their Own Timelines To Comply With The Timelines Prescribed By The Rules Of Court 2012 Which Have Statutory Force Of Law
Introduction
[1] This is the grounds of judgment for two of this Court's decisions. One was made on 5 June 2025 dismissing with costs the defendant's Notice of Application dated 21 March 2025 (Encl 7) and the other made immediately thereafter, on the same day where by consent of both the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant's Notice for the plaintiff to produce the documents pleaded in the statement of claim dated 12 March 2025 (Encl 6) was struck out.
Enclosure 7
[2] Via Encl 7 the defendant applied for:
a. Leave to file its defence in this action;
b. Leave to serve a Notice to Produce (Encl 6) upon the plaintiff;
c. That the plaintiff responds to or comply with the said Notice to Produce;
d. That the defendant be allowed to file its defence within 14 days of it receiving all the documents requested via the said Notice to Produce (Encl 6);
e. costs of the application be in the cause;
f. such further relief or order as this Honourable Court deems fit.
[3] The plaintiff opposed this application in its entirety, submitting that the defendant has failed to show sufficient reasons for its delay in entering appearance and that the delay, coupled with the procedural approach taken by the defendant, is prejudicial to the expeditious disposal of the matter.
Adjectival Law
[4] The issue that arose for the determination of this Court falls within the realm of adjectival law also called procedural law, see Khairy Jamaluddin v. Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim & Another Appeal ; [2022] 4 MLJ 194 ; [2022] 5 AMR 40 FC para 2.
[5] In order to have an efficient and orderly conduct of litigation, there are rules to manage it and these rules have to be obeyed. In Syarikat Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. Business Chinese Directory Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLRA 192 ; [1994] 2 CLJ 729 SC , the Supreme Court has these wise words to say:
"Further, it has been held by the courts that Rules of Court are to be obeyed. Failure to comply with them will lead to chaos in the conduct of litigation. See Lee Guat Eng v. Tan Lian Kim [1985] 1 MLRA 504; [1985] 2 MLJ 196, Ratnam v. Cumarasamy & Anor [1962] 1 MLRA 241; [1962] 1 MLJ 330."
[6] Nevertheless, in 2002, Mohtar Abdullah FCJ in the celebrated and landmark case of Megat Najmuddin Dato' Seri (Dr) Megat Khas v. Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd ; ; [2002] 1 AMR 1089 FC gave a caution in the following words:
"However, a judge should not be so besotted by the rules that his sense of justice and fairness becomes impaired because of his blinkered fixation on technicalities of the rules and the cold letter of the law."
[7] The above case of Megat Najmuddin led to the introduction of O 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 which came into force on 17 May 2002 vide PU (A) 197/2002 and which provides as follows:
"Regard shall be to justice (O 1A)
"In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non-compliance with these Rules."
[8] However, O 1A cannot be invoked when a party intentionally disregards compliance with the rules of Court. See Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sul
