Syarikat Air Melaka Berhad v Fasihah Binti Zamran (MA-12B-3-03/2026)

FASIHAH BINTI ZAMRAN (a person under disability suing through her mother and next friend, Suriani binti Abdul Rahman)

NUR IZZAHRA BADRINA BINTI MOHD ZULKARNAIN (a minor suing through her grandmother and next friend, Suriani binti Abdul Rahman)

SURIANI BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN (Applicants in this application) ... RESPONDENTS (On appeal from the decision of the Sessions Court at Melaka in Guaman No. MA-B53KJ-20-09/2024 dated 26 February 2026) (Application under Order 4 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 Enclosure 11) Grounds of Decision (Respondents' application for consolidation and transfer of appeals) A. INTRODUCTION [1] By a notice of application dated 10 June 2026 (Enclosure 11), brought under Order 4 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, the Respondents to this appeal the Plaintiffs in the action below seek an order that the present appeal, Rayuan Civil No. MA-12B 3-03/2026, presently before this Court as High Court (3) Melaka, be transferred to High Court (2) Melaka and there consolidated with, and heard together with, Rayuan Civil No. MA-12B-4 03/2026, with provision for the costs occasioned by the application. [2] The two appeals are cross-appeals arising from a single decision of the Sessions Court at Melaka in Guaman No. MA-B53KJ-20 09/2024, delivered on 26 February 2026. The present appeal (MA-12B-3-03/2026) is the appeal of Syarikat Air Melaka Berhad, the Defendant in the action; the other appeal (MA-12B-4 03/2026) is the appeal of the Plaintiffs. Each is directed against the whole of the decision on liability and quantum. [3] For convenience, the Plaintiffs — the applicants on this application, and the Respondents in the present appeal — are referred to as "the Applicants". Syarikat Air Melaka Berhad the Appellant in the present appeal, and the respondent to this application is referred to as "the Respondent". [4] The application is supported by the affidavit of Sheikh Ikhzan bin Sheikh Salleh affirmed on 10 June 2026 (Enclosure 12) and is accompanied by a certificate of urgency (Enclosure 13). The question for determination is whether the two cross-appeals, arising as they do from one judgment upon a single record, ought to be heard together by one Court and, if so, in which forum and upon what terms. B. THE APPLICATION AND THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE COURT [5] The relief sought is set out in Enclosure 11. In substance it is twofold: that the present appeal be transferred from High Court (3) to High Court (2) Melaka; and that, once transferred, it be consolidated with and heard together with MA-12B-4-03/2026. The stated ground is that both appeals originate from the same action, Guaman No. MA-B53KJ-20-09/2024 in the Sessions Court (1) Melaka. [6] The affidavit in support (Enclosure 12) deposes that the present appeal is seised by High Court (3) and the Applicants' appeal by High Court (2), and that both derive from the same Sessions Court action (para 3); that the two appeals ought to be consolidated and heard together in MA-12B-4-03/2026 (paras 4 and 6); and that a joint hearing will save the time and costs of the Court (para 6). The deponent affirms that the application is made bona fide and will not prejudice any party (para 7). [7] The certificate of urgency (Enclosure 13) certifies that the hearing of the application should be expedited because both appeals have been fixed for hearing on 9 July 2026 and both stand at the stage of the filing of submissions. The urgency is therefore selfevident: if the appeals are to be heard together by a single Court, the question of a common forum must be resolved before that date. [8] The matters deposed in Enclosure 12 are not controverted by any affidavit in reply before me, and no prejudice to the Respondent arising from a joint hearing has been identified. C. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK [9] Order 4 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 confers the power invoked. It provides, in effect, that where two or more causes or matters are pending in the same Court, and it appears to the Court that some common question of law or fact arises in them, or that the rights to relief claimed arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under the rule, the Court may order them to be consolidated, or may order them to be tried at the same time or one immediately after another, or may order any of them to be stayed pending the determination of another. The provision is disjunctive: the satisfaction of any one of the three limbs suffices to engage the discretion. [10] An appeal pending before the High Court is a "matter" within the rule. Both appeals are pending in the same Court the High Court of Malaya at Melaka albeit presently assigned to different judges. The power conferred by Order 4 rule 1 is reinforced by the Court's general power of case management and its inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own process so as to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings. [11] The discretion is not exercised mechanically. The Court weighs the degree of commonality between the proceedings; the savings in time and costs that a joint hearing would achieve; and any prejudice that consolidation or a joint hearing might occasion to a party. Of particular weight, where cross-appeals lie from a single decision, is the avoidance of a multiplicity of hearings and of the risk that two Courts, hearing the same matter separately, might arrive at inconsistent conclusions upon the identical record. Considerations of the convenience of witnesses, which loom large at trial, carry less weight on an appeal determined upon the record. D. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION [12] The application satisfies each of the three limbs of Order 4 rule 1, and the discretion plainly ought to be exercised in favour of a joint hearing.

Common Question Of Law Or Fact [13] The two appeals proceed upon the very same record and the very same Grounds of Judgment. Each challenges the Sessions Court's findings on liability the apportionment of 90% against the Defendant and 10% against the First Plaintiff and its assessment of quantum. The questions of law and fact arising in the two appeals are not merely common; they are, in all material respects, identical. The first limb is amply satisfied.

(ii) Same Transaction [14] The rights to relief asserted in both appeals arise out of the same transaction a single road accident, litigated in a single action and determined by a single judgment. The second limb is likewise satisfied. [15] Were the cross-appeals to be heard separately by two judges of the High Court, there would be a real and obvious risk of inconsistent appellate conclusions upon the same apportionment of liability and the same heads of damages. Such an outcome would be productive of confusion and would imperil the orderly administration of justice. A single hearing before one Court eliminates that risk and is, in any event, the orderly course where two appeals are brought against one decision. The third limb is satisfied independently of the first two.

(iv) Savings In Time And Costs; Absence Of Prejudice [16] A joint hearing will require but one appeal record, one set of submissions and one hearing, with corresponding savings in the time of the Court and the costs of the parties. That economy is the more pressing given the certificate of urgency and the hearing date of 9 July 2026. Against these advantages, no prejudice has been identified. A joint hearing deprives the Respondent of no substantive right: it remains free to prosecute its own appeal, and to resist the Applicants' appeal, to the full. Indeed, the avoidance of inconsistent findings serves the Respondent's interests no less than the Applicants'.

The Forum For The Joint Hearing [17] The Applicants nominate High Court (2) Melaka as the forum for the joint hearing, that being the Court in which their own appeal (MA-12B-4-03/2026) is seised, and seek the transfer of the present appeal to that Court. An order for consolidation under Order 4 rule 1 is, however, made "on such terms as the Court thinks just", and the selection of the forum in which the consolidated appeals are to be heard is a matter within the Court's discretion. In granting a joint hearing the Court is not bound to adopt the particular forum nominated by the applicant; the object of the rule a single hearing before one Court is achieved equally, whichever of the two appeals is made to receive the other. [18] In the present case the more convenient and orderly course is to retain the present appeal in this Court and to bring the Applicants' appeal to it, rather than the converse. This Court is already seised of one of the cross-appeals, MA-12B-3-03/2026, and it is before this Court that the present application has been made and considered. To retain that appeal here, and to transfer MA-12B 4-03/2026 from High Court (2) into this Court, avoids displacing a matter of which this Court is already seised, achieves the joint hearing that the Applicants seek, and occasions no prejudice to either party. The selection of the receiving Court being a matter of administrative convenience, no countervailing consideration tells against that course. The precise listing and conduct of the consolidated appeals will, as in any such case, abide the directions of this Court. E. COSTS [19] This application is, in substance, a measure of case management which serves the interests of both parties and of the orderly disposal of the appeals, rather than a contest won by one side against the other. The just order is that the costs of and occasioned by the application be costs in the cause of the consolidated appeals. F. CONCLUSION AND ORDER [20] The threshold under Order 4 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 is met under each of its limbs, and every relevant consideration favours a joint hearing of the two cross-appeals. The application is allowed to that extent. As to the forum, however, the appropriate course is to consolidate the appeals in this Court rather than in High Court (2). I make the following orders:

Rayuan Civil No. MA-12B-3-03/2026 be retained in this Court, High Court (3) Melaka.

Rayuan Civil No. MA-12B-4-03/2026 be transferred from High Court (2) Melaka to this Court, High Court (3) Melaka.

Rayuan Civil No. MA-12B-3-03/2026 and Rayuan Civil No. MA-12B-4-03/2026 be consolidated and heard together in MA-12B-3-03/2026 before this Court, the precise listing and conduct of the consolidated appeals to abide the directions of this Court.

The costs of and occasioned by this application shall be costs in the cause of the consolidated appeals.

For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not affect the Defendant's separate appeal (Enclosure 71) against the setting aside of the third-party proceedings (Lampiran 50), which is not the subject of the present application. [21] The application in Enclosure 11 is allowed accordingly, on the terms set out above. (MELAKA) Lawyer For Appellant Tetuan Gan Ho & Razlan Hadri Peguamcara dan Peguambela K-3-10, Level 3, Block K, Solaris Mont Kiara 2, Jln Solaris, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. Lawyer For Respondent Encik Sheikh Ikhzan bin Sheikh Salleh Tetuan Fadzil Alimi & Associates Peguamcara dan Peguambela No. 67-1, Jalan SP4, Taman Semabok Perdana, 75050 Semabok, Melaka.