Abdul Malik Ishak J:

JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]I case managed this case for trial and I vigorously applied nO. 34 r. 4(2)(f) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (“RHC”)and r. 2 of the RHC

[2]The parties were most unhappy with my case management directions. They now sought to convince me that in so far as their medical experts were concerned, they should be given a free hand to decide whether they should furnish and deliver their medical experts’ reports and, consequently, they ought not to be directed to prepare and exchange the witnesses statements of their medical experts. They preferred their medical experts to be subpoenaed and to attend court in order to testify and tender their medical reports. They preferred the conventional method.

[3]I am mindful that the orders of this court should be obeyed by the parties. Any interruption of the trial process constitutes a serious and direct threat to the administration of justice. It is an accepted law and it is the law that the court has the power to punish as contempt of court any party who interrupts the trial process. It is an inherent power that cannot be taken away by statute ( Ex p Pater [1864] 5 B & S 299; R v. Lefroy [1873] LR 8