Dalam kes Rohana binti Ariffin v Universiti Sains Malaysia Hashim Hussin Yaakob v Universiti Sains Malaysia [1988] 2 MLJ 609 di muka surat 612 memutuskan; 11 “…In any event, therefore, if it was not open to me to act under Order 2 rule 1(1), then so far as may have been necessary, I had no hesitation in making the necessary orders for extension of time in the exercise of my discretion by virtue of the provisions of Order 3 rule 5(1) and (2) having regard to all the circumstances in order to satisfy the insistent demands for justice. Most particularly, in exercising my discretion, I took into consideration the fact that there might have been here a mistake on the part of the applicants' solicitor in the interpretation of a complex set of rules which, so far as I am aware, had never been judicially considered in any reported case of our courts, as a result of which, it might be said, that the applicants had fallen foul of the time limits imposed by the rules of court. If so, I did not consider that they ought to suffer for their solicitor's mistakes, regard being had to the particular circumstances of their cases. I considered that such a mistake – if mistake there had been – could and should be a ground for extension of time and I so ordered. The authority I should like to cite in support of this proposition is the following passage in the judgment of Chang Min Tat F.J. in Gan Hay Chong v Siow Kian Yuh [1975] 2 MLJ 129 131: "He concluded that a mistake by a solicitor was not a sufficient ground for granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal or a memorandum of appeal. If he had taken the view that the mistake of the appellant's solicitors in the circumstances of this case was not such a ground, his view would, with respect, be unexceptionable but as a general dictum, it went, to my mind, too far." I therefore dismissed the preliminary objection and directed that the applications be heard on the merits. 12