TAN TUAN SING v 1. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD 2. ) COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Outcome
Based on the reasons above, I allowed the Respondent’s claim as follows: (a) the Appellant pay the damages of RM560,000.00.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Illustrates the court's power under Order 34 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 to visit consequences on a party that fails to comply with case-management directions, and the emphasis the courts place on readiness for trial and adherence to pre-trial timetables.
This High Court decision at Johor Bahru, delivered by Wong Mee Ling J, concerns the case management of a civil suit and counterclaim, and the consequences of a party's failure to comply with the court's directions. The original claim had been brought by an individual against a statutory housing company and a development company; the housing company in turn pursued a counterclaim. The matter came before the Court on the question whether it could allow the opposing party's claim because of the other side's failure to comply with directives, including the filing of pre-trial documents by the deadline, engaging Aturan 34 kaedah 2(3) dan (4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 34 rule 2(3) and (4) of the Rules of Court 2012).
Order 34 rule 2 empowers the court, at a pre-trial case-management stage, to give directions and to make such order as is just — including consequences for non-compliance — to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the action. The Court underlined the professional obligations of counsel under the Legal Profession (Etiquette and Conduct) Rules 1978, including the duty to be reasonably certain of being able to appear and to make every effort to be ready for the day fixed for trial, reinforcing that compliance with pre-trial directions is the responsibility of the parties and their counsel.
Applying those principles to the defaulting party's failure to meet the pre-trial directions, the Court made orders in the opposing party's favour, including costs of RM10,000 to be paid within fourteen days and interest at 8% per annum on a sum of RM560,000 calculated from 16 March 2018. The judgment is a useful illustration of the court's power under Order 34 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 to visit consequences on a party that fails to comply with case-management directions, and of the emphasis the courts place on readiness for trial and adherence to pre-trial timetables.
What was the effect of the party's failure to comply with the pre-trial directions?
The Court, exercising its case-management powers under Order 34 rule 2(3) and (4) of the Rules of Court 2012, made orders in the opposing party's favour as a consequence of the default — including costs of RM10,000 payable within fourteen days and interest at 8% per annum on a sum of RM560,000 from 16 March 2018 — underlining counsel's duty to be ready for trial.
What principle did the Court emphasise about pre-trial compliance?
That compliance with case-management directions and readiness for the day fixed for trial are the responsibility of the parties and their counsel, reinforced by the Legal Profession (Etiquette and Conduct) Rules 1978, and that Order 34 rule 2 empowers the court to make such order as is just to secure the expeditious disposal of an action.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-22ncvc-150-10-2024)