Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heights Condominium A (WA-11BNCvC-12-03/2024)

The Appellant files this application under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 25).

Summarily, Enclosure 25 is an application by the Appellant for-i. Memorandum Rayuan bertarikh 22.3.2024 yang telah disertakan dalam Rekod Rayuan (Kandungan 3) yang difailkan pada 22.3.2024 adalah dianggap sebagai difailkan secara teratur dan sempurna; ii. Secara alternatif kepada perintah (b) di atas, Memorandum Rayuan bertarikh 22.3.2024 (Kandungan 21) yang telah difailkan pada 25.10.2024 adalah dianggap sebagai teratur dan difailkan dalam tempoh masa yang diperuntukkan; iii. Perayu/Plaintif dianggap sebagai telah mematuhi Aturan 55 Kaedah 3(5), Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 berkaitan permohonan secara bertulis untuk mendapatkan Alasan Penghakiman dan Nota Prosiding daripada Mahkamah Majistret;

The Appellant cited the following reasons to support its application in Enclosure 25- “1. Pada 7.10.2024, Peguamcara Responden telah menghantar surat mengemukakan Bantahan Awalan terhadap Rayuan Perayu/Plaintif atas alasan berikut: -

Perayu/Plaintif gagal memohon Nota Prosiding dan Alasan Penghakiman daripada Mahkamah Majistret selaras dengan Aturan 55

Perayu/Plaintif gagal membuat bayaran untuk pemfailan Memorandum Rayuan.

Perayu/Plaintif telah memfailkan dan menyerahkan Rekod Rayuan dalam tempoh masa yang diperuntukkan iaitu pada 22.3.2024 di mana Rekod Rayuan tersebut mengandungi Memorandum Rayuan Perayu.

Selain itu, Perayu/Plaintif telah menghubungi Mahkamah Majistret secara panggilan telefon setelah memfailkan Notis Rayuan untuk memperoleh Alasan Penghakiman beberapa kali. Alasan Penghakiman tersebut telah disediakan oleh Mahkamah Majistret pada 29.5.2024 dan Perayu telah memfailkan Alasan Penghakiman tersebut sebagai Rekod Rayuan Tambahan pada hari yang sama.

Setelah menerima Bantahan Awalan daripada Defendan, peguamcara Perayu/Plaintif menyedari Memorandum Rayuan tidak difailkan secara berasingan dengan membayar fi pemfailan sebanyak RM80.00.

Kemudian, peguamcara Perayu/Plaintif telah menyelaraskan ketinggalan yang tidak disengajakan tersebut dengan memfailkan Memorandum Rayuan bertarikh 22.3.2024 (Kandungan 21) pada 25.10.2024 dan membuat bayaran fi pemfailan yang diperlukan.

Oleh itu, Perayu/Plaintif memfailkan permohonan ini untuk menyelaraskan sebarang ketidakpatuhan dalam Rayuan 12.

Responden tidak boleh membangkitkan Bantahan Awal untuk apa-apa ketidakpatuhan Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah.

Sebarang ketidakpatuhan yang dibangkitkan dalam Bantahan Awal tersebut tidak memprejudiskan Responden memandangkan Memorandum Rayuan tersebut telah disertakan dalam Rekod Rayuan yang difailkan dan Responden telah menerimanya serta mengetahui alasan-alasan rayuan yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu.

Tiada sebarang salahlaksana keadilan yang substantial (substantial miscarriage of justice) dan tiada apa-apa prejudis kepada Responden yang tidak boleh dibetulkan melalui satu perintah yang bersesuaian akibat ketidakpatuhan tersebut.

Sekiranya permohonan ini tidak dibenarkan, Perayu/Plaintif akan mengalami ketidakadilan yang serius kerana rayuan Perayu/Plaintif mungkin ditolak atas alasan teknikal tanpa didengar berdasarkan merit. Alasan-alasan lanjut permohonan ini adalah seperti dinyatakan dalam Afidavit Sokongan yang dikrarkan oleh BANUSHAA A/P NARENTHIRAN (NO. K/P: 980729- 10-6640) dan difailkan bersama-sama permohonan ini.”. BRIEF FACTS [4] The Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2016 and engaged in the business of selling and providing mechanical and engineering services. The Respondent is a management body incorporated under the Strata Titles Act 1985, authorised with executing the duties and responsibilities prescribed under the Act. [5] On 4/11/2022, the Appellant filed a claim against Respondent for RM56,151.14, claiming arrears for maintenance work rendered on nine lifts in the Respondent’s building. [6] The Learned Magistrate dismissed the Appellant’s claim due to failure to specifically plead and prove how the amount of RM56,151.14 was calculated. The Magistrate found that the Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation or breakdown of invoices to substantiate the claim. [7] The Appellant then filed their Notice of Appeal on 28/2/2024 upon the decision of the Magistrate which was delivered on 16/2/2024, after a full trial. [8] However, no application was made by the Appellant for the Grounds of Judgment as required under Order 55 rule 3(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). Further, there was no filing of the Memorandum of Appeal and no payment was made as required by Appendix B1 Item No. 59 of the ROC. [9] These were the basis of the Preliminary Objection by the Respondent on 7/10/2024. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the Memorandum of Appeal on 25/10/2024 and Enclosure 25. PARTIES’ CONTENTION [10] In support of this application, the Appellant submitted that there was no miscarriage of justice in view of non-complicance under Order 55 rule 3 of the ROC. In the letter dated 7/10/2024, the Respondent neither raised any issue of prejudicial nor harm resulting to the non-compliance. Further, the Respondent did not file any application to strike out this suit on the basis of non-compliance of procedure. [11] Besides, the Respondent is estopped from raising preliminary objection on the ground of non-compliance under Order 2 rule 3 of the ROC. It was further contended that Appellant did not make any application for Notes of Proceedings as the Grounds of Appeal has been filed in the Record of Appeal in Enclosure 3. The relevant Notes of Evidence was also filed in the Records of Appeal filed by the Appellant. [12] On the issue of the absence of request for the Grounds of Judgment from the Magistrate Court, the Appellant did not do so as the Respondent has applied for it. Further, the Appellant has filed the Grounds of Judgment in the Supplemental Record of Appeal (Enclosure 7) and has been served to Respondent’s solicitor. [13] Consequently, the Appellant submitted that the technical non-compliance due to inadvertent omission to apply for the Grounds of Judgment and Notes of Proceedings from the Magistrate’s Court may be remedied as the Court shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice under Order 1A of the ROC. In this case, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice since the Respondent is not prejudiced and has waived his right to raise this issue since there was no application filed to strike out the Appellant’s case. [14] On the other hand, in his objection, the Respondent replied that there was no valid reason given by the Appellant for the failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Order 55 rule 3(5) of the ROC. There was intentional disregard of Order 55 rule 3(5) of the ROC as the Appellants’ solicitors were aware that they had not applied for the Grounds of Judgment and were alerted to that fact by the Respondent during the eReview on 18/4/2024. [15] The decision by the Magistrate was delivered on 16/2/2024 following a full trial. The Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal on 28/2/2024. However, the Appellant failed to apply for the Grounds of Judgment as required under Order 55 Rule 3(5) of the ROC. Although the Notes of Proceedings had already been obtained during the trial, this does not exempt them to apply for the Grounds of Judgment. [16] Furthermore, the Appellant did not file the Memorandum of Appeal or pay the requisite filing fee as stipulated under Appendix B1 Item No. 59 of the ROC. It was only after receiving the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection on 7/10/2024 that the Appellant filed the Memorandum of Appeal and made the necessary payment on 25/10/2024. [17] Hence, there is no proper appeal to be heard due to intentional disregard by the Appellant which cannot be remedied by Order 1A or Order 2 rule 3 of the ROC whereby a general provision cannot supersede a mandatory provision. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [18] Order 55 rule 3(5) of the ROC is a mandatory provision. It states as follows- "For an appeal under this rule, the appellant shall, within the time limited for the filing of an appeal, apply to the Court appealed from in writing for the notes of proceedings and the grounds of judgment." (Emphasis Added) [19] The word "shall" means that compliance is mandatory and cannot be ignored as they are crucial for the administration of justice (see Low Cheng Soon v. TA Securities Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLRA 298; [2003] 1 CLJ 309; [2003] 1 MLJ 389; [2003] 2 AMR 287 (CA), Chua Choong Yin v. Tan Boon Bak Trading Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 1 MLRA 199; [2002] 3 CLJ 357; [2002] 4 MLJ 145 (CA). Thus, the non-compliance with O. r. 3(5) of the ROC renders the whole appeal as not properly brought before the Court and incompetent. [20] The Learned Magistrate delivered her decision after a full trial on 16/2/2024. Therefore, the last day for applying for the Grounds of Judgment was 1/3/2024 (14 days from the date of the decision appealed from - O. 55 r. 2 of ROC) but no application was made by the Appellant for the Grounds of Judgment. [21] In this regard, the Federal Court decision of Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj Tunku Mahkota Johor v. Datuk Captain Hamzah bin Mohd Noor and another appeal [2009] 1 MLRA 528; [2009] 4 CLJ 329; [2009] 4 MLJ 149; [2009] 5 AMR 296 that held that if the provision in the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) is mandatory, then it is not curable by Order 1A as "technical non-compliance". Thus, the failure to comply would be fatal if there was intentional disregard of the mandatory rule. The Federal Court held- "[46] The technical non-compliance of any rule may be remedied where there is an accidental omission or oversight by a party. A general provision such as O 1A of the RHC is for the court or judge to give heed to justice over technical non-compliance. It must not supersede a mandatory requirement of the Rules. Order 1A cannot be invoked when a party intentionally disregards in complying with the Rules. Otherwise, parties would be encouraged to ignore the Rules. Thus in this case, O 1A of the RHC does not apply as the respondents had intentionally disregarded O 6 r 7(2A) for their own reasons." "48] In the context of the Rules of the High Court 1980 the phrase …technical non-compliance ...’ is thus a reference to non-compliance with a rule which is not fundamental or mandatory in nature." [22] This Court is persuaded by the submissions of the Respondent that the Appellant has failed to provide a justified reason to answer the Preliminary Objection of the Respondent. The omission and failure to comply with the ROC cannot override this mandatory requirement. The reason given in paragraph 10.2 of the Appellant's Affidavit Sokongan (Encl. 26) is a mere contention that because the Respondent's solicitor has applied for the Grounds of Judgment (for the Respondent's Appeal in another appeal for the same action at the Magistrates Court), therefore action has been taken by the Plaintiff's solicitor to obtain the Grounds of Judgment. [23] The conduct of the Appellant to disregard Order 55 rule 3(5) of the ROC, the omission and failure to comply with the ROC, cannot override the mandatory requirement to strictly adhere to the provisions of Order 55 of the ROC. CONCLUSION [24] Based on the above deliberations, Enclosure 25 is dismissed with costs. The Preliminary Objection by the Respondent is allowed. In the light of this, since there is no appeal proper before this court, this appeal is therefore struck off. DATED: 22nd OCTOBER 2025 (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of the High Court NCVC1 Kuala Lumpur COUNSELS For the Appellant : R. Thanasegar a/l Ramasamy dan Banusha Naventhiran Tetuan Chambers of Firdaus For the Respondent : Tony Dhana Tony Dhana & Co.