Compliance with 'unless orders' in pre-trial management is mandatory, and appeals must follow established procedures to maintain judicial efficiency.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal, documented in encl 48 against the decision of the learned Deputy Registrar ("DR") on 17 February 2015 dismissing the application of the plaintiff dated 29 August 2014 (encl 19) principally for the following orders:-

(i) The setting aside of the decision of the learned DR on 7 August 2014 which had struck out the claim by the plaintiff; and

(ii) The reinstatement of the said claim.

[2] At the hearing on 21 June 2015, I dismissed the appeal (with costs) and provided broad reasons for the same. This is my full judgment for the decision, focusing on the law relating to the enforcement of "unless order" and the procedure for challenging the same.

Key Background Facts

[3] The plaintiff's action against all the four defendants was struck out on 7 August 2014 by the learned DR by reason of the failure by the plaintiff to comply with an "unless order" issued on 17 June 2014. It is necessary for me to provide a more detailed set of facts for a better appreciation of the context of the striking out.

[4] The instant case involves six pre-trial case management conferences. At the second session on 8 May 2014, by way of the issuance of an "unless order" pursuant to O 34 of the Rules of 2012 (" RC 2012 "), the learned DR directed parties to file Bundle of Pleadings, Common Bundle of Documents, List of Witnesses and Case Summary by 17 June 2014. At the subsequent pre-trial case management conference on 17 June 2014, the learned DR issued another "unless order" directing the plaintiff to ensure the filing of the Common Bundle of Documents, Statement of Agreed Facts and Statement of Issues to be tried, by 7 August 2014 since these were supposed to have been prepared and filed by the plaintiff by then (17 June 2014) but not done.

[5] At the same time, a mediation session amongst the parties had also been scheduled for 23 June 2014. The first mediation took place on the said 23 June 2014 and at the conclusion of the second session on 7 July 2014 parties agreed to further mediate and 20 July 2014 was fixed for the third mediation session.

[6] Following the conclusion of the second mediation, on the same day Counsel for the plaintiff informed the Court that the mediation would be further progressed on 20 July 2014, with the likelihood of parties applying for a settlement or consent order. The Counsel for the first, second and third defendant informed the Court that the case had also been fixed for further case management on 7 August 2014 and for trial on 22 and 23 September 2014.

[7] At the third mediation session on 20 July 2014 parties failed to reach an agreement. The failure of the mediation was recorded by the Court on the same day. Before the learned DR at a case management on the same day, the Counsel for the plaintiff was informed by the learned DR that the outstanding documents from the plaintiff as specified in the "unless order" of 17 June 2014, requiring the plaintiff to ensure filing of the same by 7 August 2014, should be adhered to.

[8] At the same case management on 20 July 2014, Counsel for the first, second and third defendant informed the Counsel for the plaintiff to furnish the former the Proposed Statement of Agreed Facts and Statement of Issues to be tried prior to the Hari Raya Aidilfitri break to enable the Counsel for the first, second and third defendant revert in time and in turn, allow the Counsel for the plaintiff to file the outstanding documents by 7 August 2014.

[9] On 3 August 2014, the plaintiff changed solicitors acting for him in this matter. At the case management before the learned DR on 7 August 2014, since the plaintiff had still