JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Introduction

These are three related appeal cases fixed for hearing before us arising from the decision of the learned Judge of the High Court at Johor Bahru. The first appeal case No. J-02-521-2006 is in respect of the defendant's appeal against the decision of the learned Judge given on 23-5-2006 in dismissing the defendant's application to adduce fresh evidence for the hearing of an appeal against a summary judgment entered against the defendant on 10.3.2006 ["Order dated 23.5.2006"]. The second appeal case No. J-03-90- 2006 is in respect of the defendant's appeal against the decision of the learned judge in affirming the Summary Judgment entered against the defendant on 10.3.2006. The third appeal case No. J-02-520-2006 is in respect of the defendant's appeal against the decision of the learned Judge given on 23-5-2006 in allowing the plaintiff's Application to enter judgment based on admission of facts under Order 27 rule 3 of the Rules of High Court ["RHC 1980"] ["Judgment plated 23-5-2006"].

Background Facts and Chronology of Events

The relevant background facts and the chronology of events leading to the present three appeal cases by the defendant are as follows:-

(1) On 1.8.2005 the plaintiff filed a writ action against the defendant for conversion of 2,150 cheques. Alternatively, the plaintiff's action was for money had and received. The plaintiff's claim was for RM30,264,256.18 as damages for conversion or money had and received.

(2) On 9.2.2006 the plaintiff filed and served an application for summary judgment for RM20,000,423.25 as damages for conversion of 1,366 cheques ["Cheques"] or for money had and received ["Summary Judgment Application"]. The Summary Judgment Application was fixed for hearing on 10.3.2006.

(3) On 6.3.2006 the defendant filed and served an affidavit in reply to oppose the Summary Judgment Application ["Defendant's Affidavit"].

(4) On 7.3.2006 the plaintiff filed and served an affidavit in reply to the Defendant's Affidavit ["Plaintiff's Affidavit"].

(5) On 10.3.2006 at the hearing of the Summary Judgment Application before the Deputy Registrar, the defendant's counsel applied for an adjournment in order to take instructions from the defendant on the averments made in the Plaintiffs Affidavit. The plaintiff's counsel opposed the application for adjournment. The Deputy Registrar declined the adjournment. The Deputy Registrar proceeded with the hearing of the Summary Judgment Application. The Deputy Registrar allowed the Summary judgment Application against the defendant ["Judgment dated 10.3.2006"].

(6) On 10.3.2006 the defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to judge in Chambers against the Judgment dated 10.3.2006 ["Summary Judgment Appeal"]. The defendant Appealed against the following:-

(a) refusal to allow an adjournment; and

(b) allowing the Judgment dated 10.3.2006.

(7) On 15.3.2006 the plaintiff subsequently filed an application for judgment for the balance of the 784 cheques ["the Remaining Cheques"] to be entered against the defendant in sum of RM10,263,832.93 under Order 27 rule 3 of the RHC 1980 ["Order 27 Application"].

(8) On 31.3.2006 the defendant filed an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence for the hearing of the Summary Judgment Appeal ["Fresh Evidence Application"]. The defendant applied for leave adduce two affidavits, namely:-

(a) the defendant's affidavit affirmed by Low Soon Hock on 14.3.2006 ["Defendant's 2nd Affidavit"]; and

(b) the affidavit filed by one third party customer of the defendant, United Refrigerator Trading Sdn. Bhd ["URT"] and affirmed by a director of URT, Lim Jeng Hong on 21.3.2006 ["URT's Affidavit"].

(9) On 23.5.2006 the High Court Judge heard the Summary Judgment Appeal, the Order 27 Application and the Fresh Evidence Application. The High Court Judge ordered that

(a) the Summary Judgment Appeal to be dismissed.

(b) The Order 27 Application to be allowed and the plaintiff was granted leave to enter judgment in the sum of