Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heights Condominium A

Case Significance

Reinforces that the requirement under Order 55 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 to request the notes of proceedings and grounds of judgment is mandatory, not technical, and that non-compliance is not cured by another party's steps — leaving no proper appeal before the court.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur concerns a civil appeal from the Magistrates' Court and an application, under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, to regularise a memorandum of appeal and to be deemed to have complied with the requirements for obtaining the grounds of judgment and notes of proceedings. The appellant, Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd, had sued the respondent, Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heights Condominium A, in the Magistrates' Court claiming arrears of RM56,151.14 for maintenance work carried out on nine lifts in the respondent's building. The Magistrate dismissed that claim on the ground that the appellant had failed to plead specifically and to prove how the sum claimed was calculated, and the appellant appealed.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection: the appellant had failed to apply for the notes of proceedings and grounds of judgment in accordance with Order 55 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012, and had failed to pay the filing fee for the memorandum of appeal. In answer, the appellant contended in effect that, because the respondent's own solicitor had applied for the grounds of judgment in a related appeal, compliance could be assumed. The court rejected that as insufficient, holding that the omission and failure to comply with the Rules could not override a mandatory requirement, and that treating such non-compliance leniently would encourage parties to ignore the Rules. Distinguishing merely technical non-compliance from breach of a fundamental or mandatory rule, the court found no justified reason had been shown. It accordingly dismissed the application in Enclosure 25 with costs and allowed the preliminary objection, with the result that, there being no proper appeal before the court, the appeal was struck off. The court emphasised that the appellate machinery depends on the timely and correct invocation of these steps, and that Order 1A of the Rules — directing attention to substantial justice over technicality — cannot be pressed into service to cure a deliberate or unexplained disregard of a requirement that is mandatory rather than merely procedural.