SATHISKUMAR A/L SURAS seorang budak berumur bawah 18 tahun menuntut melalui ibu yang sah iaitu NIRMALADEVI A/P MAHALINGAM v 1. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD 2. ) ARCHANA A/P LETCHUMANAN

Case Significance

Refuses a second extension of time to file a record of appeal, holding that waiting for the sealed judgment did not excuse the delay because Order 55 rule 4(2) permits a supplementary record without leave, and treating the default as a deliberate disregard of a mandatory rule.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision concerns an application for leave to extend, for a second time, the time to file a record of appeal out of time, arising from a road accident claim in which the appellant, a minor, sued through his mother as next friend, with an insurer as second respondent. The application was made under Order 55 rules 2, 3, 4 and 5, Order 3 rule 5 and Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012, and, if granted, the appellant sought leave to serve the record of appeal within seven days.

The court examined the explanation offered for the failure to file the record of appeal in time. The reason advanced, and admitted by the appellant's own solicitor, was that the record of appeal had not been filed because the solicitor was waiting for the sealed judgment to be returned by the court. The court characterised the resulting delay as a deliberate disregard of a mandatory rule of procedure.

The court noted that Order 55 rule 4(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 in fact permits the filing of a supplementary record of appeal without leave of court, so that waiting for the sealed judgment did not justify the failure to file the record in time. It held that the reason given by the appellant's solicitor did not enable the court to invoke Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 to remedy the non-compliance. Referring to the guidance in authorities including National Union of Bank Employees v Director General of Trade Union and the case concerning Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar, the court found that this was not a fitting case for the exercise of its discretion to extend time. The judgment illustrates the strict approach to extensions of time for filing a record of appeal, and that waiting for a sealed judgment does not excuse non-compliance where a supplementary record may be filed without leave.