JUDGMENT

Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA:

[1] This application was heard by us and at the end of the hearing had unanimously dismissed it with costs. The applicant appellant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) had sought leave for extension of time, to file the supplementary record of appeal from the date of receipt of the sealed order of the High Court, the notes of evidence and the grounds of judgment of the High Court of Malaya at Alor Star, Kedah Darul Aman.

[2] The antecedents were that the applicant had filed for a judicial review to quash the Industrial Court Award No. 51 of 2006 dated 13 January 2006 but was dismissed with costs (hereinafter referred to as the decision) by the learned judge. The decision date was 30 April 2007. As regards the award, the facts were that the Industrial Court had refused to reinstate a claim which was struck out earlier. The claim was filed by the applicant against the first respondent. Being dissatisfied with the decision she thereafter had filed a notice of appeal to this court on 21 May 2007.

[3]Vide a letter bearing the date 25 June 2007 the applicant had written to the High Court for the grounds of judgment and the notes of proceedings. On the same date the applicant had written in to the President of the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to file the records of appeal but was accorded a negative reply on 11 July 2007. The reason given was that the application had not complied with Practice Direction 1/1996. She should have written in to the President of the Court of Appeal by 21 June 2007. For purposes of this issue the relevant portion of the Practice Direction reads as follows:

... Untuk menyelaraskan prosedur memfailkan rekod rayuan dan untuk menyegerakan lagi prosiding di Mahkamah Rayuan, maka amalan berikut hendaklah diikuti bagi permohonan perlanjutan masa untuk memfailkan rekod rayuan atas alasan nota-nota keterangan tidak diperolehi dari YA Hakim.

(1) Dalam tempoh satu bulan dari tarikh nota rayuan difailkan, sekiranya perayu belum lagi dibekalkan dengan nota-nota keterangan YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi selepas ianya dipohon, maka perayu hendaklah dengan serta merta memohon kepada Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan untuk perlanjutan masa memfailkan rekod rayuan. Satu salinan permohonan ini hendaklah dimajukan kepada peguam responden.

[4] The court, in its reply further advised the applicant that in the event she was interested in pursuing the appeal, a motion for extension should be filed in court. Despite the rejection by the President of the Court of Appeal the applicant had still proceeded to file the record of appeal on 16 July 2007; and this despite the applicant not having taken any steps, in the like of an abridgement application, to render the filing of the record of appeal regularised as earlier advised. The respondent had also ventilated in the course of the hearing, and not denied by the applicant, that it had highlighted to the applicant in the affidavit in reply, of the need to remedy the situation before filing the record of appeal. Unfortunately it was also not heeded by the applicant.

[5] The next relevant sequence saw the applicant filing a supplementary record of appeal inspite of not having filed the record of appeal. In the supporting affidavit, the applicant had affirmed that as the sealed order, the notes of proceedings and grounds of judgment were yet to be received she was thus unable to gauge the reason for the dismissal of the judicial review. The applicant reasoned that she was thus unable to file the supplementary record of appeal. As if this unusual reasoning was not sufficiently confusing, the applicant then prayed that a month extension be granted, effective from the date of receipt of the notes of proceedings and the grounds of judgment, in order to file that supplementary record of appeal. Interestingly, again there was conspicuous silence in the supporting affidavit as to why the defects prior to the filing of the record of appeal had not been rectif