Teoh Kok Seng v Uob Kay Hian Securities (M) Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-293-05/2025)

This Grounds of Judgment is prepared in respect of this Court’s decision dated 15.4.2026 whereby the Plaintiff’s action was struck out following the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an unless order previously granted by this Court on 3.4.2026.

The said order was made after this Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to file the Common Bundle of Documents as expressly directed by the Court notwithstanding that a clear unless order 04/06/2026 08:24:56 WA-22NCvC-293-05/2025 Kand. 54 had been imposed that failure to comply with the said direction would result in the Plaintiff’s action being struck out.

However, taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, particularly the Plaintiff’s repeated changes of solicitors and his eventual decision to act in person, this Court struck out the action with liberty to file afresh in order to avoid permanently shutting the Plaintiff out from ventilating his claim on the merits.

The Plaintiff commenced this action on 13.5.2025.

On 12.6.2025, during the first case management before the Senior Assistant Registrar, directions were given for the filing of pleadings and at the material time the Plaintiff was represented by Messrs Lui & Bhullar.

Pleadings were subsequently completed and on 25.9.2025 the matter was fixed for trial on 9 to 11 June 2026 after no interlocutory applications were filed.

However, on 12.11.2025, the Plaintiff’s solicitors filed a Notice of Withdrawal as solicitors for the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff thereafter appointed new solicitors namely Messrs Tan Heng Chew through a Notice of Appointment filed on

19.12.2025 and fresh pre-trial case management directions were subsequently given whilst maintaining the original trial dates.

On 3.3.2026, counsel for the Plaintiff informed this Court that the Plaintiff had personally filed documents through the e-filing system objecting to the Defendant’s Proposed Agreed Facts without first consulting his solicitors.

This Court then directed counsel to advise the Plaintiff not to continue doing so since he remained legally represented.

The Court was further informed by the Plaintiff’s solicitors that mediation had failed and that counsel was considering withdrawing from acting due to difficulties in obtaining cooperation from the Plaintiff.

On 3.4.2026, case management was conducted before this Court following the appointment of yet another new firm of solicitors for the Plaintiff namely Messrs Vaasu & Yannis Neoh. During that case management, this Court directed the parties to file the Common Bundle of Documents on or before 7.4.2026.

At the same time, this Court expressly granted an unless order that, in the event the Plaintiff failed to comply with the said direction, the Plaintiff’s claim would be struck out.

However, during the subsequent case management before the Senior Assistant Registrar on 10.4.2026, the Court was informed that the Plaintiff had filed a Notice to Act in Person on 7.4.2026 and had only filed the Plaintiff’s Bundle of Documents instead of the Common Bundle of Documents as specifically directed by this Court.

The Defendant thereafter applied for the Plaintiff’s claim to be struck out on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with the unless order granted by this Court.

On 15.4.2026, this Court struck out the Plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the unless order but granted liberty to file afresh in order to mitigate any disproportionate prejudice to the Plaintiff.

It is a well-established principle that case management directions and unless orders are not mere procedural formalities but constitute binding court orders which parties are obliged to comply with.

This Court possesses wide powers to manage proceedings and ensure compliance with case management directions pursuant to Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012 as well as the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court

The inherent jurisdiction of the Court exists to prevent abuse of the court process and to ensure the proper administration of justice.

Order 34 rule 1(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 expressly empowers the Court to dismiss an action or strike out pleadings where a party fails to comply with case management directions or timelines, including failures relating to pre-trial directions and case management compliance.

This Court further emphasises that compliance with case management directions cannot be treated as a mere technicality. Such directions form an important mechanism to ensure that litigation proceeds in an orderly, efficient, and fair manner, particularly where trial dates have already been fixed.

The case of Reiss v Woolf [1952] 2 All ER 112 is a long-standing precedent that an "unless order" is a peremptory order of the court that must be strictly adhered to, and non-compliance automatically triggers the prescribed penalty, e.g., striking out the defence or dismissing the claim. In this case, the court laid down the foundational rationale that striking out a claim for failure to comply with an unless order is a draconian but necessary measure. The court reasoned that parties must suffer the consequences of their defaults, and a disobedient party cannot simply use judicial time as an “à la carte menu”.

In the case of Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council [1997] 1 WLR 1666, a landmark English Court of Appeal decision establishing that a litigant's defence can be struck out following an unless order for failure to comply with discovery rules, emphasizing that the client generally must suffer for their solicitor's defaults.

Whilst striking out remains a draconian measure, the Court of Appeal in Md Amin bin Md Yusof & Anor v Cityvilla Sdn Bhd [2004] 3 CLJ 88 recognised that such an order may properly be granted where the conduct of the defaulting party amounts to intentional and contumelious disregard of court orders, particularly where there exists a history of repeated non-compliance.

This was also stated by the Court of Appeal in Hup Soon Omnibus Co. Sdn. Bhd. & Anor v Lim Chee @ Lam Kum Chee [2017] MLJU 1937 where the Court mentioned that the Court will pay particular regard to the paramount importance of securing compliance with its order. In that case, the court referred to the case of Stolzenberg and Others v CIBC Mellon Trust Co. Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 827, where Arden LJ said at paragraph 167; “….compliance with orders of the Court is not a question of judicial amour proper. It goes to the essence of the rule of law that parties subject to the Court’s jurisdiction…should comply with the Court’s order. The gravity of the matter of non-compliance is plainly increased where the non-compliance results from a conscious decisions as this case. It follows, as Ward LJ said in Hytec Limited v Conventry City Council [1997] WLR 1666 at 1674 to 167, that, “if a party intentionally or deliberately….flouts the order, he can expect no mercy.” ’.

This Court finds that the non-compliance in the present case was not a single isolated procedural oversight nor was it caused by circumstances beyond the Plaintiff’s control.

The breakdown in compliance arose entirely from the Plaintiff’s own conduct in the management of his case.

Whilst a litigant is entitled to choose his own solicitors, he cannot utilise repeated changes of solicitors or the withdrawal of counsel as a basis to delay proceedings or avoid compliance with court directions.

Even after electing to act in person, the Plaintiff still failed to exercise the minimum degree of diligence necessary to sustain proceedings in the High Court.

This Court cannot ignore persistent non-compliance which results in unnecessary wastage of judicial resources and leaves the Defendant perpetually exposed to unresolved litigation. The Plaintiff’s conduct had gone beyond mere inadvertence or ordinary negligence and had become contumelious in nature.

In the present case, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff failed to file the Common Bundle of Documents as expressly directed by this Court.

The direction granted on 3.4.2026 was clear, specific and accompanied by an express consequence in the event of non-compliance.

The Plaintiff not only failed to comply with the said direction but had also chosen to act in person on the very deadline for compliance without ensuring that the Court’s directions were properly complied with.

This Court also took into consideration the broader procedural history of this matter including the Plaintiff’s repeated changes of solicitors and the concerns raised by previous counsel regarding difficulties in obtaining the Plaintiff’s cooperation.

The circumstances demonstrate that the non-compliance in this case was not an isolated or inadvertent omission but arose within a broader pattern of procedural difficulties attributable to the Plaintiff’s own conduct in managing the litigation.

This Court further took into account that trial dates had already been fixed and the filing of the Common Bundle of Documents formed an essential component of trial preparation and orderly case management.

In such circumstances, this Court was satisfied that striking out the Plaintiff’s action pursuant to the unless order constituted a proper, proportionate and necessary exercise of this Court’s case management powers in preserving the integrity of the litigation process.

At the same time, this Court remained mindful that the merits of the Plaintiff’s substantive claim had not yet been adjudicated upon.

In exercising its judicial discretion, this Court was guided by the overriding objective under Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012, which requires the Court to ensure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings while avoiding disproportionate procedural consequences where appropriate.

As observed in Ooi Swee King v Standard Chartered Saadiq Bhd [2023], [2024] 2 CLJ 476 where a matter is struck out due to procedural default before the substantive merits are ventilated, it may in appropriate circumstances be just to grant liberty to file afresh.

Accordingly, this Court deliberately adopted a measured and proportionate approach by granting the Plaintiff liberty to file the action afresh.

The effect of such liberty is that the Plaintiff was not permanently deprived of his substantive right to pursue his claim but would instead be required to recommence proceedings in compliance with the applicable procedural requirements.

In the opinion of this Court, such an approach appropriately balanced the need to uphold procedural discipline and preserve the integrity of the Court’s process on the one hand, and the interests of justice to the Plaintiff on the other.

This Court also took into account that the decision whether to enforce the consequences of an unless order forms part of the trial court’s judicial discretion in managing proceedings before it.

The trial court is in the best position to assess the extent of compliance by parties, the impact of non-compliance upon the progress of proceedings, and the necessity of ensuring that trial dates and case management directions are not undermined.

Having considered the entirety of the procedural history, the Plaintiff’s persistent non-compliance with the unless order, the repeated changes of solicitors, and the Plaintiff’s failure to comply even after electing to act in person, this Court found the Plaintiff’s conduct sufficiently serious to warrant the striking out of the action.

This Court further found that the direction relating to the filing of the Common Bundle of Documents was not a mere technical requirement but formed an essential aspect of ensuring trial readiness and the orderly progression of the action.

In the circumstances, this Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff’s action ought to be struck out pursuant to the unless order previously granted under Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012.

However, taking into consideration proportionality and fairness, and given that the substantive merits of the Plaintiff’s claim had yet to be ventilated, this Court granted the Plaintiff liberty to file the action afresh should the Plaintiff wish to do so, including for purposes of enabling the Plaintiff to appoint new solicitors before recommencing the action.

In the opinion of this Court, the said order represented a balanced, proportionate, and proper exercise of judicial discretion consistent with the interests of justice and effective case management. Dated: 3rd June 2026 ………………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Applicant : K S Teoh (Plaintiff) Counsel for The Respondents : Chong Hau Yean Messrs. Gopi Seshadari (Kuala Lumpur) Advocates & Solicitors