1. ) HO SZE KEEN 2. ) TOH OOI PENG 3. ) SURIA FIRST HOLDINGS SDN BHD v ARA HILL JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY

Case Significance

Illustrates the court's power under Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out an action for non-compliance with pre-trial case-management directions, and the emphasis on the court's proactive case-management role and on parties' compliance with directions to ensure the orderly disposal of cases.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns the striking out of a writ and statement of claim for failure to comply with pre-trial case-management directions. The plaintiffs, two individuals and a company, being owners of units in a development, had sued the defendant, a joint management body established under the strata-management legislation. In the course of case management the court had given directions for the filing of pre-trial documents and had fixed a trial date, directions that were agreed to by the solicitors for both sides; and, when the parties later proposed that the questions of law be decided together with the questions of fact after a full trial, the court accepted that course and again reminded the parties to file all pre-trial documents by a stated date. The parties failed to file the pre-trial documents, save for the bundle of pleadings, the plaintiffs explaining that they were engaged in a Construction Court matter involving the same parties. The plaintiffs' counsel sought further time to complete the documents but did not explain the failure to comply with the pre-trial directions, notwithstanding that a period of some six months had been allowed. Invoking Order 34 rule 2(3) of the Rules of Court 2012, the court struck out the writ and statement of claim. In its grounds the court emphasised the increasingly proactive role of the court in case management to ensure the orderly hearing and disposal of cases, and held that its order striking out the action, made at the case-management session, was in accordance with the applicable law. The plaintiffs have appealed. The court's approach shows that pre-trial directions are not optional and that a party who ignores them, without a proper explanation, risks the summary loss of the action. The judgment is a useful illustration of the court's power under Order 34 to strike out an action for non-compliance with pre-trial case-management directions, and of the emphasis on parties' compliance with such directions.