Chew Soo Ho J:

ENCLOSURE 11INTRODUCTION

[1]The plaintiffs have filed an appeal on 13 December 2012 against the order of the learned senior assistant registrar (‘SAR’) made on 1 October 2012 on the taxation of costs in respect of this action to the judge in chambers pursuant to O 56 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012.

[2]At the onset of this appeal, learned counsel for the first to the fourth defendants had raised a preliminary objection that this appeal was filed out of time and thus not maintainable and ought to be dismissed in limine.

[3]Upon this preliminary objection, both parties have advanced thier respective arguments vide written submissions for the determination by this court on this issue.

FINDINGS OF COURT

[4]The order of the learned SAR on taxation was undoubtedly made on 1October 2012 but a clarification of the order was sought and it was heard on 6December 2012 whereupon the plaintiffs then filed the appeal on 13December 2012 against the decision of the learned SAR. If the appeal is against the decision of the learned SAR made on 1 October 2012 the appeal would be out of time when it was filed on 13 December 2012 and if the date of clarification is construed to be the date of the decision of the learned SAR which is 6 December 2012, then the notice of appeal lodged on 13 December 2012 would be well within the 14 days after the said clarification order as contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

[5]Order 56 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that ‘An appeal shall lie to a Judge in Chambers from any judgment, order or decision of the Registrar of the High Court’.

Order 56 r 1(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 states:

(3) Unless the Court otherwise orders, the notice shall be filed within fourteen days after the judgment order or decision appealed against was given or made, and shall be served not less than five days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the defendant contended that by referring to s 3Courts of Judicature Act 1964Syarikat Tingan Lumber Sdn Bhd v Takang Timber Sdn Bhd Teoh Poh Keong Sdn Bhd v Shinhan Engineering & Construction Co Ltd s 3Courts of Judicature Act 1964Bozson v Altrincham UDC s 3Courts of Judicature Act 1964judgment or order or decision does not extend the date when such judgment order or decision was made. In any event, clarification of a judgment, order or decision, in my view, is not itsetf a judgment, order or decision but it seeks to clarify what may seem ambiguous or some technical or inadvertent errors but it does not change the judgment, order or decision which had been pronounced. This is particularly so when after the clarification, there is no variance of the judgment, order or decision that had been made. I do not think that the date of the clarification of the judgment, order or decision of the SAR can be construed as the date of the judgment, order or decision for if it is so, it can undoubtedly be subject to abuse for simple reason that an appellant who would be out of time to file his appeal could then make a request for clarification in order to extend or enlarge the time to avoid a more onerous application for extension of time.

[6]Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that pursuant to O 42 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, the sealed order of the SAR dated 6 December 2012 was initially sealed on 13 December 2012 and thus when the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was filed on 13 December 2012, it was in compliance with the 14 days time frame under O 56 r 1(3) of the Rules of Court 2012. I find that this argument can be dispelled by reading O 42 r 7(2) which says that:

7(2) Such a judgment or order shall be dated as of the day on which it is pronounced, given or made unless the Court orders it to be dated as of some other earlier or later day, in which case it shall be dated as of that other day.

[7]The order of the learned SAR was pronounced on 1 October 2012 and rightfully, it must be dated with this date as there is no indication that th