Omvikknesh A/L Raman v Kesas Sdn Bhd (BA-12B-44-04/2024)

Omvikknesh a/l Raman, Perayu-Plaintif, memfailkan Saman Pemula di Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya terhadap Kesas Sdn Bhd, Responden-Defendan menurut A. 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 yang memohon perintah agar Responden-Defendan membekalkan rakaman CCTV pada 1-9-2018 seperti dinyatakan dalam 2 Laporan Polis. Rakaman CCTV itu ialah mengenai bukti kemalangan ke atas motorsikal bernombor pendaftaran VAX 5894.

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya (selepas ini disebut “Pn HMS yang bijaksana”) menolak Saman Pemula Perayu-Plaintif dengan kos RM1000.00. Perayu-Plaintif tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi.

Mahkamah Tinggi ini, pada 29-7-2024, mendapati keputusan Saman Pemula oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah teratur dari segi fakta dan undang-undang. Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan Pn HMS dan keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah betul dan tidak khilaf. Dengan itu, bagi rayuan ini, Mahkamah Tinggi menolak rayuan Perayu-Plaintif. Keputusan Pn HMS dikekalkan dan Mahkamah membenarkan kos sebanyak RM3,000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur).

Plaintif (Omvikknesh A/L Raman) dan bapa kandungnya (Major (B) Raman A/L Marimuthu) mengikrarkan afidavit-afidavit masing-masing untuk menyokong permohonan sebagaimana dalam Saman Pemula Plaintif.

Plaintif-Perayu terlibat dalam kemalangan jalan raya di mana pada 1-9-2018 Plaintif menunggang motosikal bernombor pendaftaran VAX 5894 dari rumah di Taman Perkasa Hulu Langat menghala ke UNISEL untuk menghadapi peperiksaan sewaktu tiba di Kilometer 46.2 selepas perhentian rehat Awan Besar telah berlanggar dengan sebuah motolori yang tidak pasti nombor pendaftarannya. Plaintif yang pengsan dan mengalami kecederaan di kepala dan lain-lain badan dibawa ke PPUM untuk rawatan. Barang peribadi Plaintif dalam bag galas yang mengandungi telefon bimbit dan wang sebanyak RM700.00 telah hilang.

Plaintif telah membuat laporan polis pada 14-9-2018. Plaintif juga menulis surat(1-9-2020, 17-8-2021 dan 25-8-2022) kepada Defendan-Responden (KESAS Sdn Bhd) memohon kerjasama Defendan-Responden untuk membekalkan dokumen dan rakaman CCTV bagi memulakan tindakan undang-undang dan menuntut pampasan berkenaan dengan kemalangan jalan raya yang menimpa Plaintif-Perayu.

Bapa Plaintif yang menyokong penuh Saman Pemula anaknya (Plaintif-Perayu) memohon agar perintah dalam Saman Pemula itu dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah.

Atas nasihat peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif-Perayu, Plaintif-Perayu menyatakan bahawa Saman Pemula adalah wajib dan perlu difailkan untuk menzahirkan rakaman CCTV yang di bawah kawalan, jagaan dan pegangan Defendan-Responden dan berkaitan dengan kemalangan jalan raya tersebut.

Dalam afidavit jawapan Defendan-Responden yang dikrarkan oleh En. Zainuddin bin Yusuf, Head of Group Quality & Control menyatakan −

berkenaan dengan surat peguam Plaintif-Perayu bertarikh 25- 3-2022 kepada Jabatan Siasatan dan Penguatkuasaan Trafik, Defendan-Responden tidak menerima apa-apa permohonan daripada pihak polis untuk menyemak rakaman CCTV berkaitan dengan kemalangan tersebut.

Defendan-Responden memasang Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) di setiap persimpangan, plaza tol dan kawasan rehat di Lebuh Raya Shah Alam menurut Guidelines for Traffic Control and Surveillance System (TCSS), Implementation for Tolled Highways in Malaysia oleh Lembaga Lebuh Raya Malaysia (Malaysian Highway Authority).

tiada CCTV di tempat kemalangan (exact location) di KM 46.2 selepas perhentian rehat Awan Besar. CCTV terdekat dengan tempat kemalangan adalah di KM 46.40 arah timur dari Klang menghala ke Bukit Jalil.

pada 28-9-2020 Defendan-Responden telah membalas/menjawab surat peguam Plaintif untuk memaklumkan bahawa Defendan-Responden tidak dibenarkan membekalkan maklumat kepada pihak ketiga. Rakaman CCTV yang lain pada 1-9-2018 juga telah tiada dalam rekod simpanan Defendan-Responden kerana rakaman CCTV hanya disimpan dalam masa 6 bulan. [10] Defendan-Responden melampirkan secara kolektif sebagai Ekshibit “D-1” iaitu Guidelines for Traffic Control and Surveillance System (TCSS), Implementation for Tolled Highways in Malaysia; gambar daripada Google Meet yang menunjukkan lokasi kemalangan di mana terdapatnya CCTV di KM 46.40 arah timur dari Klang menghala ke Bukit Jalil dan surat-surat Defendan-Responden bertarikh 28-9-2020 dan 19-9-2022 kepada peguam Plaintif-Perayu. [11] Atas nasihat peguam cara terpelajar Defendan-Responden, Defendan-Responden menyatakan bahawa permohonan Plaintif-Perayu adalah salahtanggap dari segi fakta dan undang-undang, permohonan Plaintif-Perayu adalah tidak perlu dan permohonan dalam Saman Pemula ini perlu ditolak. Afidavit balasan Plaintif-Perayu: [12] Bapa Plaintif-Perayu, atas nasihat peguamnya, meghalusi afidavit jawapan Defendan-Responden dan memfailkan afidavit balasan untuk menjawab kepada afidavit Defendan-Responden. Bapa Plaintif-Perayu menyatakan −

adalah mustahil pihak Jabatan Siasatan dan Penguatkuasaan Trafik gagal dan/atau enggan menghubungi Defendan-Responden. Dakwaan Defendan-Responden ini boleh menyebabkan bapa Plaintif-Perayu membuat laporan polis dan aduan rasmi untuk memulakan tindakan tatatertib terhadap pegawai polis berkenaan kerana tidak patuh piawaian tugas.

sebagai pengendali lebuh raya, Defendan-Responden gagal/enggan/cuai untuk berkongsi rakaman CCTV dan gambar kemalangan secara sukarela dengan PDRM mengenai kemalangan tersebut.

sebagai orang awam yang menggunakan perkhidmatan lebuh raya, Plaintif tiada maklumat khusus mengenai tugas Defendan-Responden. Defendan-Responden juga tidak memaklumkan pengguna lebuh raya bahawa tiada CCTV di KM 46.2 (tempat kemalangan).

tiada Guidelines for Traffic Control and Surveillance System (TCSS), Implementation for Tolled Highways in Malaysia dibekalkan sama ada secara dalam talian atau secara media cetak.

bapa Plaintif-Perayu berpendirian bahawa setiap rakaman CCTV wajar dan wajib menyeluruh untuk mengelakkan prejudis kepada Plaintif dan pengguna lebuh raya.

Defendan-Responden yang mengenakan tol kepada pengguna lebuh raya termasuk Plaintif-Perayu sebagai penunggang motosikal, maka, Defendan-Responden bertanggungjawab untuk memastikan ciri-ciri keselamatan pengguna dipatuhi dan dipenuhi secara tepat dan khusus.

sebagai bapa Plaintif-Perayu, orang awam tidak tahu bahawa rakaman CCTV hanya disimpan untuk tempoh 6 bulan. Tiada terma sebegitu dinyatakan dan tidak dipamirkan mengenai syarat sedemikian di papan tanda. Kausa tindakan adalah 6 tahun dari tarikh kemalangan maka rakaman CCTV perlu disimpan mengikut tempoh itu dan bukannya untuk tempoh 6 bulan.

tiada salahtanggap bagi permohonan Saman Pemula Plaintif-Perayu. Tetapi, Defendan-Responden kini mahu memutarbelit fakta agar terlepas dari tindakan undang-undang. Keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana: [13] Mahkamah Sesyen telah meneliti Saman Pemula, kertas kausa termasuk afidavit dan hujahan bertulis dan pendengaran hujahan lisan. [14] Pada perenggan 3 alasan penghakiman, Pn HMS memutuskan bahawa −

intitulmen Saman Pemula tidak mengandungi A. 24 k. Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan tiada limb spesifik dinyatakan untuk dirujuk. Khasnya, A. 24 k. 7A (Discovery against other person). Perkara ini boleh dibaiki melalui permohonan pindaan secara lisan kepada Mahkamah ketika pendengaran. Namun, peguam Plaintif tidak berbuat sedemikian.

A. 24 k. 7(4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.

nas undang-undang kes iaitu keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Cheow Chew Khoon @ Teoh Chew Khoon (Yang Berniaga sebagai Cathay Hotel) v. Abdul Johari Abdul Rahman [1995] 4 CLJ 127; keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Lee Heng Moy v. Christopher Wong Wai Yee & Ors [2011] 3 CLJ 372; dan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam dalam kes TS Land Management Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah Pejabat Tanah & Galian Shah Alam, Selangor [2016] MLJU 281 yang memutuskan keperluan/kewajipan untuk mematuhi A. 24 k. 7(4) [Order for discovery of particular documents] dan A. 7 k. 2(1A) [Forms of originating summons] Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. [15] Pn HMS mendapati Plaintif gagal −

menyatakan dan memohon perintah di bawah A. 24 k. terlebih dahulu. Ini menjadikan Saman Ppemula Plaintif fatal, caca-marba, bercampur aduk, kelam kabut dan tidak keruan; dan

menyatakan limb kaedah secara spesifik, jelas, nyata dan terang. Ini menimbulkan kekeliruan kepada semua pihak dalam prosiding termasuk Mahkamah. Plaintif gagal menyatakan dengan jelas A. 24 7A(2) yang disandarkan oleh Plaintif sepertimana yang digariskan dalam A. 7 k. 2(1A) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, kegagalan Plaintif mematuhi kehendak peruntukan tersebut yang adalah mandatori kerana perkataan “shall” tertera dalam peruntukan-peruntukan tersebut (rujuk Lee Heng Moy v. Christopher Wong Wai Yee & Ors [2011] 3 CLJ 372). [16] Berkenaan dengan afidavit bapa Plaintif, Pn HMS memutuskan untuk tidak menerima kandungan afidavit itu kerana bapa Plaintif tidak menyatakan beliau diberikan kuasa untuk mengikrarkan afidavit tersebut (rujuk Young Yeon Chin & Ors v. Quek Yak Kang & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 860). [17] Perayu-Plaintif menyatakan kekhilafan Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah – “It is obvious that the presiding Session’s Court Judge Puan

seem to have completely ignored Order 1A;

failed to consider and evaluate the jurisprudence invented and demonstrated by Order 1A;

failed to understand and appreciate that Order 1A now allowed and granted Judicial Officers and Judges powers by to proceed with the merits of the matter;

failed to understand and appreciate that Order 1A has now allowed and granted wide liberty to Courts;

the lame reasoning as found in paragraph 48 Grounds of Judgement dated 21st May 2024 are preposterous and outrages;

the arguments procured in paragraph 48 are illogical and grossly inconsistent with the law;

the omission by the Session’s Court Judge Puan Azlina Binti Mahmod is so glaring and clearly runs contrary to present well established legal principles and the arguments advanced by the Sessions’s Court Judge are quite unimpressive;

and the Appellant therefore submit that the arguments advanced by the learned Session’s Court Judge are dangerously inaccurate and seriously inconsistent with the current state of the law.”. Penilaian, Analisis dan Dapatan Mahkamah ini dalam memutuskan rayuan terhadap keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana [18] Mahkamah ini telah menilai dapatan dan analisa Pn HMS yang bijaksana dan berpendapat tiada kekhilafan mengenai dapatan undang-undang Pn HMS yang bijaksana. Adakah Pn HMS yang bijaksana telah khilaf dari segi undang-undang mengenai peruntukan A. 1A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012? Order 1A. Court or judge shall have regard to justice Regard shall be to justice (O. 1A) In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non-compliance with these Rules. [19] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 (“the White Book”) pada 1A/1/1 iaitu − “Effect of the rule − This rule provides that the court should not be unduly bound by the rules of technicality and should not allow procedural irregularity to affect the essential justice of the case. In Jagdis Singh Banta Singh v. Outlet Bank (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 CLJ 47, CA, the Court of Appeal upheld the workings of Order 1A. The respondent here raised a preliminary objection on the basis of rules 593) and 18(3) Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 and argued that the court’s copies of the record of appeal were defective as the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal were unsigned. The Court of Appeal refused to uphold the preliminary objection and noted that as the respondent had suffered no prejudice, the respondent was precluded from making an objection. In addition, the Court of Appeal was minded to construe the corresponding Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 in a liberal manner, so as to ensure that mere technicalities would not impede the consideration of a case on its merits. In Re VK Sathavisam; Ex p Phileoallied Bank (Malaysia) berhad [2004] 5 CLJ 549, it was held that non-compliance with RHC 1980 Order 46 r 2(3) (now RC 2012 Order 46 r 2(3) is a technical non-compliance and is superseded by Order 1A. Further, in Abd Hamid Jaafar v. Shamsiah Dan Keluarga Sdn Bhd [2004] 5 CLJ 381, the failure to state in the affidavit that the deponent reads and understand English was also a technical failure. In the High Court case of Westport Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Northern Democrats mbH & Co KG [2017] 3 AMR 720; [2017] MLJU 236, Azizah Nawawi J held that non-compliance with Order 11 r 4(3) had not occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice. Mere technicality that does not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice will not be entertained. ... Order 1A cannot be invoked when a party intentionally disregards compliance with the rules of court. See Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar AlHaj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor (and another appeal) [2009] 5 AMR 298;[2009] 4 MLJ 149; [2009] 4 CLJ 329, FC. Order 1A cannot cure if there is a failure to file a memorandum of appeal. ... Order 1A cannot cure non-compliance of RC 2012 ... . Rules of Court 2012, Order 1A can cure technical errors for example in an application for striking out, where it did not state specifically under which of the four limbs of Order 18 r 19(1) the application was made. ...”. [20] Mahkamah boleh menggunapakai A. 1A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, ini sekiranya ketidakpatuhan tersebut adalah bona fide. Berdasarkan fakta kes ini, Perayu-Plaintiff langsung tidak membuat sebarang pindaan sama ada secara bertulis atau lisan walaupun menyedarinya. Tindakan ini tidak boleh dipandang ringan oleh Mahkamah seperti dinyatakan dalam kes Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal iaitu − “[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 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. O. 1A RHC 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 RHC does not apply as the respondents had intentionally disregarded O. 6, r. 7(2A) RHC 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.”. [21] Perintah/Relief yang dipohon oleh Plaintif-Perayu di Mahkamah Sesyen ialah melalui Saman Pemula. Aturan 7 memperuntukkan peruntukan am bagi Saman Pemula dari segi Forms of originating summons (A. 7 r. 2); Contents of originating summons (A. 7 r. 3); Issue of originating summons (A. 7 r. 5); Duration and renewal of originating summons (A. 7 r. 6); dan Ex parte originating summons (A. 7 r. 7). Peruntukan mengenai saman pemula (A. 7): [22] Mahkamah ini pasti pemilihan untuk memfailkan Saman Pemula oleh Plaintif-Perayu bagi mendapatkan perintah/relief penzahiran dokumen rakaman CCTV daripada Defendan-Responden hendaklah mematuhi peruntukan iaitu − Forms of originating summons (O. 7, r. 2)

2.

Every originating summons shall state in its intitulement any provision of these Rules and any provision of any written law under which the Court is being moved. Contents of originating summons (O. 7, r. 3)

3.

Every originating summons shall include a statement of the questions on which the plaintiff seeks the determination or direction of the Court or, as the case may be, a concise statement of the relief or remedy claimed in the proceedings begun by the originating summons with sufficient particulars to identify the cause or causes of action in respect of which the plaintiff claims that relief or remedy. [23] Seterusnya, peruntukan A. 24 berkenaan dengan penzahiran adalah − Order for discovery (O. 24, r. 3)

3.

Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rules 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power and may at the same time or subsequently also order him to make and file an affidavit verifying such a list and to serve a copy thereof on the other party. Order for discovery of particular documents (O. 24, r. 7)

An order under this rule shall not be made in any cause or matter in respect of any party before an order under rule 3 has first been obtained in respect of that party, unless, in the opinion of the Court, the order is necessary or desirable. Discovery against other person (O. 24, r. 7a)

7a.

An application for an order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings shall be made by originating summons and the person against whom the order is sought shall be made defendant to the originating summons.

An application after the commencement of proceedings for an order for the discovery of documents by a person who is not a party to the proceedings shall be made by a notice of application, which shall be served on that person personally and on every party to the proceedings.

An originating summons under paragraph (1) or a notice of application under paragraph (2) shall be supported by an affidavit which shall—

in the case of an originating summons under paragraph (1), state the grounds for the application, the material facts pertaining to the intended proceedings and whether the person against whom the order is sought is likely to be party to subsequent proceedings in Court; and

in any case, specify or describe the documents in respect of which the order is sought and show, if practicable by reference to any pleading served or intended to be served in the proceedings, that the documents are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the claim made or likely to be made in the proceedings or the identity of the likely parties to the proceedings, or both, and that the person against whom the order is sought is likely to have or have had them in his possession, custody or power.

A copy of the supporting affidavit shall be served with the originating summons or the notice of application on every person on whom the originating summons or the notice of application is required to be served.

An order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings or for the discovery of documents by a person who is not a party to the proceedings may be made by the Court for the purpose of or with a view to identifying possible parties to any proceedings in such circumstances where the Court thinks it just to make such an order, and on such terms as it thinks just. [24] Dalam alasan penghakimannya, Pn HMS memutuskan bahawa − “[27] Plaintif menyebut Aturan 24 kaedah 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dalam Intitulmen Lampiran

[28] Namun, Plaintif gagal menyebut Aturan 24 kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dalam Intitulmen Lampiran 1. [29] Oleh itu, permohonan Plaintif di bawah Aturan 24 kaedah 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 telah tersasar dan ‘fatal’ dari segi undang-undang. [30] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan bahawa Defendan diprejudis kerana Defendan keliru dengan peruntukan undang-undang yang mana Plaintif bergantung kepadanya untuk Mahkamah membuat keputusan bagi Perintah Penzahiran iaitu adakah di bawah Aturan 24 kaedah 7 atau Aturan 24 kaedah 7A (1)/7A (2) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. [31] Sekiranya Plaintif berpaut pada Aturan 24 kaedah 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, tanpa Aturan 24 kaedah 3 dahulu diperolehi, maka permohonan Plaintif hendaklah ditolak.”. Persoalan: Adakah pemahaman undang-undang oleh Pn HMS khilaf? [25] Berdasarkan dapatan Pn HMS, Mahkamah ini mendapati keputusan beliau untuk menolak Saman Pemula Plaintif adalah kerana ketidakpatuhan keperluan undang-undang (legal requirements) menurut A. 7 dan A. 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. [26] Dalam Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 (“the White Book”) pada 7/1/4 menjelaskan mengenai keperluan intitulement iaitu − Intitulement−Order 7 r 2 (1A) requires an originating summons to state in its intitulement the provision of the written law under which the application to court is being made. … Generally, the wrong intitulement in an originating summons would render it irregular. However, the case of Chain Cycle Sdn Bhd v. Government of Malaysia [2014] 10 CLJ 196, HC, held that an irregularity is subject to the curative powers of thecourt under Order 2 r 1, and in this case it was decided that it was an appropriate instance for the exercise of such powers as the affidavit in reply affirmed by the defendant made it clear that the defendant understood the issue raised in the originating summons … . In the recent case of TS Land Management Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah, Pejabat Tanah & Galian Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan [2016] AMEJ 0254; [2016] 10 MLJ 740, HC, the court held that there should be a nexus between the intitulement and the prayers asked for. Flaws that are apparent in an originating summons cannot be corrected by explanation and facts affirmed in the supporting affidavit.”. [27] Dalam notis rayuan, Plaintif-Perayu menyatakan − “(e) the lame reasoning as found in paragraph 48 Grounds of Judgement dated 21st May 2024 are preposterous and outrages;

the arguments procured in paragraph 48 are illogical and grossly inconsistent with the law;

the omission by the Session’s Court Judge Puan Azlina Binti Mahmod is so glaring and clearly runs contrary to present well established legal principles and the arguments advanced by the Sessions’s Court Judge are quite unimpressive;

and the Appellant therefore submit that the arguments advanced by the learned Session’s Court Judge are dangerously inaccurate and seriously inconsistent with the current state of the law.”. [28] Pemakaian peruntukan yang terkandung dalam Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bukan semata-mata bertujuan − “In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non-compliance with these Rules.”. Ketidakpatuhan kepada peruntukan-peruntukan mengenai saman pemula dan penzahiran sebagaimana ditetapkan oleh Aturan 7 dan Aturan 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 yang menyebut “shall” adalah peruntukan mandatori kepada pihak-pihak. [29] Dalam permohonan penzahiran oleh Plaintif-Perayu di hadapan Mahkamah Rendah adalah jelas bahawa penzahiran dan pembekalan rakaman CCTV di kawasan kemalangan tersebut diperlukan untuk Plaintif mengambil tindakan undang-undang atau tidak terhadap motolori yang tidak pasti terlibat dalam kemalangan dengan motosikal Plaintif. Jawapan Defendan-Responden (KESAS Sdn Bhd) tidak dikupas lanjut oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana. Walaupun Pn HMS yang bijaksana dalam alasan penghakimannya menolak afidavit oleh bapa Plaintif, Mahkamah ini mendapati keputusan Pn HMS menolak Saman Pemula tersebut adalah berpunca daripada “non-compliance with these Rules”. Ketidakpatuhan tersebut bukan semata-mata teknikal. Pihak Defendan-Responden terjejas dengan ketidakpatuhan Plaintif-Perayu untuk mengikut tatacara yang ditetapkan. [30] Mahkamah ini tidak menjumpai apa-apa sebab yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 48 alasan penghakiman Pn HMS yang bijaksana sebagai preposterous and outrages; illogical and grossly inconsistent with the law; omission that is so glaring and clearly runs contrary to present well established legal principles; the arguments advanced by the Sessions’s Court Judge are quite unimpressive; and the Appellant therefore submit that the arguments advanced by the learned Session’s Court Judge are dangerously inaccurate and seriously inconsistent with the current state of the law. [31] Mahkamah ini mengekalkan keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana kerana prinsip undang-undang dalam kes Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar AlHaj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor (and another appeal) [2009] 4 CLJ 329 dengan jelas memutuskan − “[4] A general provision such as O. 1A RHC must not supersede a mandatory requirement of the Rules. O. 1A RHC cannot be invoked when a party intentionally disregards in complying with the Rules. Thus, in this case, O. 1A RHC did not apply as the respondents had intentionally disregarded O. 6 r. 7(2A) RHC for their own reasons. [5] In the context of the Rules of the High Court 1980 the phrase “...technical non-compliance...” refers to non-compliance with a rule which is not fundamental or mandatory in nature. O. 1A RHC cannot be invoked to cure the failure to comply with the prerequisites O. 1A RHC. The answer to question two was in the negative.”. [32] Y.A Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J (Y.A pada ketika itu) dalam kes Ong Commodities Pte Ltd v. kek Tek Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 10 CLJ 585, bagi keperluan untuk “pre-trial discovery of documents” memutuskan − “[6] The remedy of pre-action discovery is primarily intended to enable justice to be done − see O. 24 r. 7A(5). The House of Lords in Ashworth Hospital Authority v. MGN Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2033; [2002] 4 All ER 193, quoted with approval the words of Templeman LJ in British Steel Corporation v. Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096 at p. 1132 to the following effect: In my judgment, the principle of the Norwich Pharmacal case applies whether or not the victim intends to pursue action in the courts against the wrongdoer, provided that the existence of a cause of action is established and the victim cannot otherwise obtain justice. The remedy of discovery is intended in the final analysis to enable justice to be done.”. [33] Mahkamah ini bersependapat dengan Y.A Azizan Md Arshad JC, Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang dalam kes Alam Langkawi Sdn Bhd v. Yew Sow Chee Selaku Pentadbir Pusaka Simati Soon Eng Kooi & Ors [2024] CLJU 1435 yang memutuskan − “[23] Dalam masa yang sama Pihak Defendan-Defendan masih boleh memfailkan semula permohonan penzahiran ini kerana Mahkamah ini tidak melupuskan atas merit tetapi hanya membatalkannya atas ketidakpatuhan kepada Aturan 24 kaedah 7A KKM 2012 semata-mata. [24] Keputusan ini bukanlah muktamad dan ianya tidak menghalang Defendan-Defendan untuk memfailkannya semula dan tiada isu res judicata yang timbul pada peringkat ini. Dalam kes Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v. Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 CLJ 783; [1995] 3 MLJ 189 (Supreme Court) memutuskan bahawa − “The said cause of action may not be re-litigated between the same parties because it is res judicata. In order to prevent multiplicity of actions and also in order to protect the underlying rationales protect of estoppel per rem judicatum and not to act against them, such estoppel of cause of action has been extended to all other causes of action (based on the same facts or issues) which should have been litigated or asserted in the original earlier action resulting in the final judgment and which were not either deliberately or due to inadvertence.”. [34] Plaintif-Perayu dalam proses untuk mengambil tindakan undang-undang terhadap pelaku (motolori) yang terlibat dalam kemalangan jalan raya dengan Plaintif-Perayu memerlukan dokumen rakaman CCTV tempat kemalangan daripada KESAS Sdn Bhd. Plaintif-Perayu masih boleh memfailkan semula permohonan penzahiran ini. Prinsip Campur tangan dan Gangguan Mahkamah pada peringkat rayuan [35] Ciri utama bagi sesuatu “appellate intervention” adalah jelas dan mantap dalam semua peringkat rayuan. Tugas Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan ialah untuk memastikan sama ada Mahkamah yang membicarakan itu mencapai keputusannya berdasarkan keputusan atau dapatan secara betul mengenai keterangan dan berasaskan kepada undang-undang. [36] Selanjutnya, Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator Of The Estates Of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ memutuskan − “[148] Given the aforesaid, we form the view that rather than adopting a rigid set of rules to demarcate the boundaries of appellate intervention insofar as findings of fact are concerned, the “plainly wrong” test as espoused in decisions of this court should be retained as a flexible guide for appellate courts. As long as the trial judge’s conclusion can be supported on a rational basis in view of the material evidence, the fact that the appellate court feels like it might have decided differently is irrelevant. In other words, a finding of fact that would not be repugnant to common sense ought not to be disturbed. The trial judge should be accorded a margin of appreciation when his treatment of the evidence is examined by the appellate courts.”. [37] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1 memutuskan – “[14] In our view, the Court of Appeal in citing these cases had clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate intervention, ie to determine whether or not the trial court had arrived at its decision or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly entitled to examine the process of evaluation of the evidence by the trial court. Clearly, the phrase ‘insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence’ merely related to such process. This is reflected in the Court of Appeal’s restatement that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. The Court of Appeal further reiterated the principle central to appellate intervention, ie that a decision arrived at by a trial court without judicial appreciation of the evidence might be set aside on appeal. This is consistent with the established plainly wrong test.”. [38] Begitu juga dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia v. Global Upline Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [2017] 1 MLJ 170 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa “an appellate court will not intervene unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its conclusion and where there has been insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence.”. [39] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1 memutuskan “the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is ‘the plainly wrong test’ principle”. [40] Prinsip undang-undang mengenai appellate intervention only justified that on the available evidence, that the SCj is erred (Kes Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v. Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 CLJ 146). [41] Dua ujian yang dikenal pasti perlu dipenuhi bagi tujuan appellate intervention adalah “plainly wrong test” and “insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence test” (the case of Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97 at 98-99). [42] Dalam kes Ong Leong Ciou & Anor v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal [2019] 3 MLRA 322 at 329, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa – “[125] We are mindful of the limited role of the appellate court in relation to the findings of facts made by the court of first instance. The general principle is that the conclusion of a trial judge is a finding of fact on the oral evidence based on the demean our and credibility of the witness before him or her. Generally, such finding ought not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is plainly wrong. It would not be sufficient to warrant an appellate interference merely because the appellate court entertains doubt whether such finding is right.”. [43] Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa – “... an appellate Court should not interfere with factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial Judge was plainly wrong or one that no reasonable Judge could have reached. If it is not, the fact that the appellate Court may have reached a different conclusion on the facts, is irrelevant.”. [44] Dalam kes rayuan dari Mahkamah Sesyen ini, apabila dapatan undang-undang oleh Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah tepat maka rumusan bahawa Saman Pemula bagi penzahiran (discovery) tidak perlu dibetulkan dan/atau diusik oleh Mahkamah ini. Pembacaan dan pemahaman Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah betul dan teratur. Kesimpulan [45] Berdasarkan alasan yang saya nyatakan di atas, penghakiman saya memutuskan bahawa keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah tidak khilaf dan keputusan Pn HMS yang bijaksana adalah menurut lunas undang-undang. Oleh yang demikian rayuan Plaintif-Perayu ditolak dengan kos sebanyak RM3000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur). [46] Pada peringkat rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, saya telah menjalankan appellate role. Oleh itu Mahkamah ini would not interfere with findings of facts. The findings and interpretation of the law by the learned SCj are correct. Bertarikh: 6 September 2024. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Sivil NCvC12 Peguam cara: Bagi Pihak Plaintif−Perayu: Kengadharan A/L Ramasamy Tetuan R Kengadharan & Co., Petaling Jaya Bagi Pihak Defendan−Responden: Ang Lay Ling Tetuan Douglas Chai Chambers, Petaling Jaya