Jasudass A/L Sanasi v Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (BA-16-62-08/2025)

Enclosure 17 is the Appellant’s application to file an additional record of appeal (Record) to include a material and relevant document.

After careful consideration of the cause papers and the submission, this Court dismissed the application. The following are the reasons for that decision. S/N 6HhuDfrbaE6XihoeEvfdjg Background facts

The Appellant filed a claim for work related injury to the Respondent. He alleged that he worked as a lorry attendant with Syarikat Kumar Maju Resources. On 22.12.2022 whilst working, he was involved in a road accident and suffered injuries for which he continues to undergo treatment.

His application was rejected by the Respondent as was his appeal to the Respondent’s Appellant Board on 14.3.2025. He then filed an appeal to the High Court on 7.8.2025 against the Appellate Board’s decision.

The document that the Appellant wished to include in his additional Record was a letter from Syarikat Kumar Maju Resources (Letter), confirming that he was in their employment at the material date.

In his affidavit in support, the Appellant averred that –

he had produced the Letter to the Appellate Board but upon filing his appeal to the High Court, he discovered that the Letter was not in the Record and had not considered by the Appellate Board;

(ii) the Letter was material and relevant to his appeal; and

(iii) there was no prejudice to the Respondent. S/N 6HhuDfrbaE6XihoeEvfdjg

The Respondent objected to the application and set out the chronology of the appeal in the High Court. Particularly, they pointed out that directions for the filing of submissions had already been given and the hearing date was fixed on 14.11.2025. The appeal was then rescheduled to 29.4.2026.

In short, the Respondent challenged the production of the Letter in this appeal as it had not adduced when the Appellant filed his claim to them or subsequently during his appeal to their Appellate Board.

There was no proof to substantiate the Appellant’s contention that the Letter had been sent to their Appellate Board. The Appellant’s failure to produce the Letter at the time he applied for the benefits meant that he was barred from producing it to the Appellate Board or now at this appeal.

The Respondent argued that this was a tactical maneuver by the Appellant and would cause them extreme prejudice if the application were allowed.

The Respondent also contended that the Letter was a new document and therefore the Appellant could not produce it by way of an additional Record. His application was defective.

In response, the Appellant maintained that he had adduce the Letter to the Respondent and the Appellate Board and that it was the Respondent who had failed to include the Letter in the Record.

This Court noticed that the central issue in rejecting the Appellant’s application and subsequent appeal to the Appellate Board was the issue of his status as an employee.

If it were true that the Appellant had furnished the Letter to either the Respondent or the Appellate Board, the was no cause for this issue to be at large. The fact that it still is leads this Court to infer that the Letter was not adduced before either the Respondent or the Appellate Board.

His explanation that he only noticed the failure to include the Letter after filing this appeal rings false. If that were true, the Appellant would have noticed the omission when the Records were filed by the end of September 2025.

This Court perused the Letter and found it suspicious as it was undated and the signatory unidentified. In the absence of a date or a verifiable author, the court cannot be satisfied that the document is authentic or contemporaneous to the time of the Appellant’s application to the Respondent.

This Court was of the view that Enclosure 17 was the Appellant’s surreptitious attempt to adduce new evidence for the hearing of this appeal. To allow the application and include a vague and unverifiable document produced at the 11th hour