JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] On 18 June 2025 this Court dismissed the Appellant's application for an extension of time (encl 3) to file its notice of appeal out of time against part of the Sessions Court 's decision dated 6 February 2025. Accordingly, its prayer to file the Appeal Records out of time was also dismissed.

[2] The Appellant today has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against this Court 's decision.

Background Facts

[3] On 6 February 2025 the Sessions Court allowed the Respondent's application for a stay of proceedings at the Sessions Court under s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA). The Respondent sought that the assessment of damages that arose from the setting aside of a Mareva Injunction Order dated 15 November 2023 proceed without prejudice to the stay of proceedings granted. The reasons relied on by the Respondent to proceed with the assessment of damages were:

(a) The Mareva Injunction Order that was set aside by the Sessions Court was not subject to the arbitration clause contained in the agreements between the Appellant and the Respondent;

(b) encl 60 (the assessment of damages) was not a matter than can be litigated through arbitration;

(c) It constituted a separate proceeding from the main proceeding and did not arise from the agreements that contained the arbitration clauses;

(d) It would be rendered futile if it could not proceed in the Sessions Court .

[4] The Appellant had left this issue to the discretion of the Sessions Court . There were no objections by the Appellant. The Sessions Court allowed the Enclosure 60 to proceed without prejudice to the order of the stay of proceedings under s 10 AA. Directions were then given for the filing of affidavits and submissions. The Sessions Court set 28 April 2025 for its decision on the assessment of damages.

[5] The Sessions Court directed that the Appellant was to file its Affidavit-in-Reply by 20 February 2025 and the Respondent to respond by 6 March 2025. Written Submissions were directed to be filed by 20 March 2025, with their respective Reply Submissions on 10 April 2025.

[6] On 10 February 2025 the Appellant's solicitor sought clarification from the Sessions Court . The Appellant alleged that the draft order prepared by the Respondent's solicitor was inconsistent and encl 60 could not proceed given the stay of proceedings under s 10 AA.

[7] On 21 February 2025 at the clarification, the Sessions Court upheld its decision and directions for the determination of encl 60.

[8] On 25 February 2025 the Appellant's solicitors issues a letter to the Respondent's solicitor requesting an extension of time to file its Affidavit in Reply. It did not file by 20 February 2025 as directed by the Sessions Court .

[9] On 26 February 2025 the Respondent's solicitors promptly responded that the Respondent was not agreeable to the Appellant's request for an extension of time to file its Affidavit in Reply. Subsequently on the same day, the Appellant's solicitors issued another letter to the Respondent's solicitors. The Appellant's letter of 26 February 2025 requested the Appellant to disregard their letter of 25 February 2025 as the Appellant had instructed its solicitors to file a notice of appeal to the High Court despite being aware of a 6-day delay when it had done so. The Appellant's solicitors queried whether the Respondent would object to the delay in filing the notice of appeal to the High Court .

[10] The Respondent's solicitors replied stating objections to the intention of late filing of notice of appeal to the High Court . Yet, the Appellant had served its notice of appeal dated 28 February 2025 to the Respondent on 3 March 2025.

[11] On 24 March 2025 at the case management before this Court , the Respondent had raised its preliminary objection to the irregularity and defective notice of appeal. The Respondent highlighted that the Appellant had failed to apply for an extension of time despite 24 days had passed since the notice of appea