JUDGMENT

Sumathi Murugiah JC:

A. Introduction

[1] This is the defendant's application made via encl 218 to strike out pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) and the plaintiff on the other hand had applied for an extension of time to file the Notice of Appointment to the defendant pursuant to the assessment of damages proceedings via encl 221.

[2] The trial to determine liability for this suit has been fully completed and the assessment of damages was ordered to be carried out before this court by the trial judge.

[3] Both parties had via a Consent Order dated 27 March 2025 agreed for both Enclosure Nos 218 and 221 to be decided together by this court and had filed a common written submission for both applications. Decisions for both these applications were delivered on 27 May 2025, whereby, I dismissed the defendant's application to strike out pursuant to O 18 and allowed the extension sought by the plaintiff.

[4] The Defendant in this case has filed a Notice of Appeal to the court of Appeal against the decision of this court in dismissing encl 218 application and also against the consequential decision to allow encl 221 for an extension of time. As such, I write this Grounds of Judgment for both applications.

B. Salient Background

[5] The Plaintiff had filed this suit against the defendant premised on the cause of action for latent defects. On 22 January 2024, this court had granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff and further ordered that the damages on the defects to be assessed.

[6] Paras (3) to (6) of the said High court Judgment dated 22 January 2024 read as follows:

"Para (3): The Defendant to pay the plaintiff damages for the works to rectify all defects that have not been rectified and/or repaired to the plaintiff subject to the assessment of damages by the court;

Para (4): The Defendant to pay the plaintiff damages for non-compliance with the Electricity Regulations 1994 subject to the assessment of damages by the court;

Para (5): The 3rd Party to indemnify the defendant for non-compliance with the Electricity Regulations 1994 subject to the assessment of damages by the court; and

Para (6): The Defendant to pay the plaintiff damages for loss of access, use of common property subject to the assessment of damages by the court."

[7] Via encl 197, the plaintiff had filed the Notice of Direction for assessment of damages. The chronology of the proceedings in this court in handling the plaintiff's encl 197 is as follows:

C. Grounds Of Application

[8] On 21 January 2025, the defendant filed a Notice of Application via encl 218 pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of 2012 for the following reasons:

i. Order 37 r 1(5) of the Rules of 2012 is mandatory and failure to comply is fatal;

ii. The Defendant suffers prejudice in the plaintiff failing to file the Notice of Appointment within 6 months from the date of the judgment of the trial as the claims made by the plaintiff against the defendant is on latent defects and failure to expedite the assessment will further cause the defects to worsen and increase the costs of rectification; and

iii. The Plaintiff has failed to comply with court's direction in filing the valuation report.

D. Findings Of The court

[9] Upon perusing through both parties' applications and cause papers in support of their respective application together with their written submissions and reply to the same and further oral submissions, I am of the view that the defendant has failed to substantiate its application via encl 218.

[10] In fact, there are many contradicting statements made by the defendant in its attempt to substantiate its case. The Defendant claims that by failing to file the Notice of Appointment within the given time, it has prejudiced the defendant due to the defects being latent defects. However, it cannot be denied that the defendant had filed for Stay of Proceedings pending the appeal of the judgment given by the trial judge after the filing of the Notice of Direction for assessment of d