JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

To The Heart Of The Matter

This was an offshoot of a previous judgment vide Folin & Brothers Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v. Wong Foh Ling & Wong Swee Lin & Ors[2001] 1 CLJ 604which took off on the direction of the Honourable Chief Judge of Malaya and it was focussed entirely on encl. 123 which was in the form of an appeal to the judge in chambers filed by the plaintiff on 6 July 2000 against the decision of the learned senior assistant registrar ("SAR") that was handed down on 6 July 2000. The learned SAR heard three enclosures simultaneously, namely, encls 107, 109 and 112 on 8 May 2000, 9 June 2000, 5 July 2000 and on 6 July 2000 she delivered her decision wherein she:

(1)dismissed the plaintiff's application in encl. 107 with costs;

(2)allowed Wong Boon Sun (the second defendant), Alice Wong Nee Chan Poh Suan (the third defendant), All Consult (M) Sdn Bhd (the fifth defendant), Folin Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd (the sixth defendant), Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co (didakwa sebagai sebuah firma) (the eighth defendant), KPMG Peat Marwick (didakwa sebagai sebuah firma) (the ninth defendant), Geh Cheng Hooi (the tenth defendant), and Ramli bin Ibrahim (the eleventh defendant) combined application in encl. 109 with costs to the plaintiff; and

(3)allowed Standard Chartered Bank - the seventh defendant's application in encl. 112 with costs to the plaintiff.

The present suit was maintained on behalf of the plaintiff by its joint liquidators in the persons of Ng Pyak Yeow and Khoo Peng Lai who were jointly appointed pursuant to an order of the court dated 13 March 1997 in the winding up actions.

Briefly, encl. 107 was the plaintiff's application by way of a summons in chambers dated 28 January 2000 to strike out the second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh defendants' defence and for judgment to be entered against them under O. 24 r. 16(1) of the Rules of the High Court, 1980 ("RHC").While encl. 109 was an application of the second, third, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh defendants' by way of a summons-inchambers dated 30 March 2000 for an extension of time to serve their affidavit verifying list of documents under O. 3 r. 5(1) of the RHC.Enclosure 112, on the other hand, was an application of Standard Chartered Bank - the seventh defendant's application by way of a summons-in-chambers dated 5 May 2000 for an extension of time to file and serve their affidavit verifying list of documents under O. 3 r. 5(1) of the RHC.

Several affidavits were filed in support of the three enclosures. The plaintiff affirmed affidavits through Ng Pyak Yeow on 27 January 2000 as seen in encl. 106, on 25 April 2000 as seen in encl. 110, on 4 May 2000 as seen in encl. 120 and on 7 August 2000 as seen in encl. 127. Khoo Peng Lai also affirmed two affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff on 23 May 2000 as seen in encl. 108 and on 2 June 2000 as seen in encl. 122.

The second, third, fifth, sixth, eighth to eleventh defendants affirmed affidavits through Robert Lazar on 30 March 2000 as seen in encl. 109A and through Yap Thong Mei on 19 May 2000 as seen in encl. 121.

Standard Chartered Bank, being the seventh defendant, affirmed two affidavits through Christopher Foo on 5 May 2000 as reflected in encls. 111 and 113.

Before proceeding any further, it would be ideal to reproduce O. 24 r. 16(1) of the RHCand I will do so now:

If any party who is required by any of the foregoing rules, or by any order made thereunder, to make discovery of documents or to produce any documents for the purpose of inspection or any other purpose fails to comply with any provision of that rule or with that order, as the case may be, then without prejudice, in the case of a failure to comply with any such provision, to rules 3(2) and 11(1), the Court may make such order as it thinks just including, in particular, an order that the action be dismissed or, as the case may be, an order that the defence be struck out and judg