Tetuan Jublin Tan & Tey v 1. ) Wong Sek Er (WA-A52NCvC-534-07/2024)

1.

2.

TEY POH CHOON (NO. K/P: 660611-01-5839) HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 200501003020 (680066-W) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (Lampiran 13 Permohonan menghidupkan semula Writ dan Penyata Tuntutan) PENGENALAN [1] Di dalam kes Writ Saman Terpinda bertarikh 22.7.2024 dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Semula yang bertarikh 9.8.2024 dibatalkan (struck-out) tanpa kos kerana pihak plaintif gagal mematuhi arahan yang di buat semasa pengurusan kes (Pre Trial Case Management /PTCM). 12/11/2025 13:09:04 WA-A52NCvC-534-07/2024 Kand. 35 LATAR BELAKANG [2] Plaintif telah memulakan tindakan ini melalui Writ Terpinda bertarikh 22.7.2024 dan Penyata Tuntutan Terpinda Semula bertarikh 9.8.2024. Defendan-Defendan telah memfailkan Pernyataan Pembelaan bertarikh 16.8.2024, dan Plaintif telah memfailkan Jawapan kepada Pembelaan bertarikh 4.9.2024. [3] Tuntutan Plaintif adalah berkaitan dengan yuran guaman profesional yang tidak dibayar oleh Defendan-Defendan bagi perkhidmatan guaman yang telah diberikan. Defendan-Defendan menafikan tuntutan tersebut dan menyatakan, antara lain, bahawa tiada pelantikan rasmi di buat terhadap Plaintif sebagai peguam cara, tiada kerja guaman substantif dijalankan, dan tiada bil kos pernah diterima. [4] Setakat tarikh 18.7.2025, sebanyak enam pengurusan kes telah diadakan, iaitu pada 15.7.2024, 26.7.2024, 16.8.2024, 4.9.2024, 1.10.2024 dan 18.7.2025. [5] Pada pengurusan kes pada 1.10.2024, Mahkamah Sesyen telah memberikan, arahan-arahan berikut:

Pihak-pihak diarahkan untuk memfailkan dokumen-dokumen pra-perbicaraan, termasuk ikatan pliding, fakta-fakta yang dipersetujui, isu-isu untuk dibicarakan, ringkasan kes, senarai saksi dan ikatan Dokumen-dokumen Pra-Perbicaraan [6] Kegagalan untuk mematuhi arahan berkaitan Dokumen-dokumen Pra-Perbicaraan, yang dikeluarkan menurut Aturan 34 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah penghakiman ingkar atau tindakan dibatalkan, bergantung kepada pihak mana yang gagal mematuhi. Tarikh-tarikh perbicaraan telah ditetapkan pada 1.9.2025, 2.9.2025 dan 23.9.2025. [7] Pada pengurusan kes pada 18.7.2025, Mahkamah Sesyen telah membatalkan tindakan Plaintif menurut Aturan 34 disebabkan kegagalan mematuhi arahan pemfailan Dokumen-dokumen. Permohonan plaintif [8] Plaintif memohon melalui Lampiran 13 di bawah Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk perintah-perintah seperti berikut:

Bahawa Writ Terpinda bertarikh 22.7.2024 dan Penyata Tuntutan Terpinda Semula bertarikh 9.8.2024 dihidupkan semula;

Bahawa satu tarikh pengurusan kes baru ditetapkan di Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur untuk arahan-arahan selanjutnya bagi tujuan pengendalian kes ini;

Kos di dalam kausa. Alasan-alasan permohonan [9] Di dalam membuat permohonan ini plaintif mengemukakan alasan-alasan berikut:

Plaintif langsung tidak berniat untuk melengah-lengahkan pemfailan dokumen-dokumen pra-perbicaraan mahupun dengan sengaja ingin melewatkan perjalanan tindakan guaman ini di Mahkamah.

Plaintif dan peguam cara Plaintif telah sejak pemfailan tuntutan Plaintif mengambil langkah-langkah mendakwa tuntutan Plaintif dengan kepantasan yang sewajarnya.

Writ dan Penyata Tuntutan ini dipohon untuk dihidupkan semula memandangkan ianya berpremiskan kepada tuntutan yang bermerit. ALASAN KENAPA WRIT DAN PENYATA TUNTUTAN DIBATALKAN [10] Pihak plaintif telah gagal mematuhi arahan yang diberikan sejak 1.10.2024 dan tiada alasan memuaskan diberikan untuk kelewatan ini yang saya anggap melampau. Kelewatan di dalam mematuhi arahan pemfailan dokumen-dokumen adalah melampau memandangkan ia telah melangkaui sepuluh bulan . Ini suatu yang sukar difahami kenapa plaintif gagal mematuhi arahan pemfailan dokumen selaras dengan A.34 KKM 2012 dan Arahan Hakim Besar Malaya adalah tidak munasabah. [11] Kegagalan untuk mematuhi arahan berkaitan Dokumen-dokumen Pra-Perbicaraan, yang dikeluarkan menurut Aturan 34 Kaedah Aturan 34 penghakiman ingkar atau tindakan dibatalkan, bergantung kepada pihak mana yang gagal mematuhi. [12] Sepatutnya ikatan dokumen ini dan lain-lain dokumen yang diarahkan untuk difailkan , telah difailkan dalam masa 30 hari dari tarikh arahan diberikan. Plaintif sudah semestinya dengan dokumen-dokumen yang diperlukan sebaik sahaja memutuskan untuk memfailkan tindakan di mahkamah. [13] Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah telah berkuat kuasa sejak tahun 2012 dan peruntukan di bawah A.34 telah wujud sejak dari tarikh itu. Jadi, adalah agak mustahil untuk pihak plaintif tidak mempunyai pengetahuan mengenainya. Banyak juga kes-kes undang-undang yang dilaporkan di dalam jurnal mengenai kesan ketidakpatuhan kepada arahan yang diberikan. [14] Plaintif menyatakan bahawa terdapat satu lagi kes yang difailkan dalam bulan Februari 2025 di Mahkamah Sesyen lain dan kes itu akan dipohon untuk disatukan dengan kes ini. Namun, setakat ini belum ada lagi pemfailan di buat untuk penyatuan kes. Sepatutnya untuk kes tersebut, pemfailan Ikatan Dokumen dan lain-lain dokumen juga sudah selesai. [15] Jika kedua dua kes ini disatukan, maka dokumen dokumen untuk bicara sudah pasti telah tersedia. Tidak ada sebab kenapa perlu menunggu permohonan penyatuan di buat dan perintah diberikan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen yang lain untuk Ikatan Dokumen di dalam kes ini difailkan memandangkan arahan telah diberikan sejak bulan Oktober tahun 2024 dan tidak ada sebarang penggantungan di buat terhadap arahan itu. [16] Kelewatan sebegini hanya memberikan kesimpulan bahawa pihak plaintif masih belum bersedia dengan dokumen. Jadi untuk mengelakkan kes ini tergantung tanpa status sedia untuk bicara, adalah lebih elok jika ia dibatalkan terlebih dahulu. Bila plaintif sudah bersedia, tuntutan ini boleh difailkan semula. [17] Saya merujuk panduan mengenai kemajuan kes untuk persiapan bicara di dalam kes Hong Leong Finance Bhd v. Low Thiam Hoe & Another Appeal [2015] 8 CLJ 1 yang menyatakan seperti berikut [18] It is pertinent to note that Yamaha Motor was decided under the old RHC 1980. The civil procedure has since then changed with the introduction of the pre-trial case management in the year 2000 under Order 34 of the RHC 1980(w.e.f. 22.9.2000) and now under Order 34 of the RC 2012 (w.e.f. 1.8.2012). Nowadays the Court recognises especially under the new case management regime that a different approach needs to be taken to prevent delay in the progress of a case to trial and for its completion. The progress of the case is no longer left in the hands of the litigants but with the Court in the driver's seat. [18] Akibat kegagalan mematuhi arahan yang diberikan ini, Mahkamah boleh membuat apa-apa perintah yang bersesuaian termasuklah menolak tuntutan, membatalkan tuntutan, membatalkan pembelaan atau tuntutan balas atau membatalkan prosiding atau membuat perintah lain yang difikirkan sesuai, seperti diperuntukkan di bawah:

Aturan 34 Kaedah (1)(3) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012,

Perenggan 9.6 Arahan Amalan Hakim Besar Malaya Bilangan 1 Tahun 2020;

Perenggan 3.5. Arahan Amalan Hakim Besar Malaya Bilangan 1 Tahun 2021. KES-KES SANDARAN [19] Di dalam kes Syed Omar Bin Syed Mohamed V Perbadanan Nasional Bhd [2013] 1 MLJ 461, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti berikut: [9] It is to be noted O 34 was a new addition to the RHC 1980 made in 2000 (see PU(A) 342/20001). It was amended again in 2009 (see PU(A) 237/20091). It provided for a radical change in approach to the prosecution of a case in court. An early recognition of this new regime under O 34 where the court takes a proactive role in moving the pace of litigation was made by the Federal Court when His Lordship Mohd Noor Ahmad FCJ observed in obiter in Tan Geok Lan v La Kuan @ Lian Kuan [2004] 3 MLJ 465 at p 473; [2004] 2 CLJ 301 at p 312 as follows: The significance of this procedure is that it marks a change from the traditional position under which the progress of cases was left largely in the hands of the parties. Now, under the procedure the court controls the progress of cases by the exercise of its powers given to it to enable it, and not the parties, to dictate the progress of cases at the pre-trial stage, ensuring that the practices and procedures applicable during that stage are complied with promptly and not abused. [20] Di dalam kes Nadarajah Lingam Sinnadurai & Ors V. Suresh Raj Lachmanan & Ors [2025] CLJU 480 HC diputuskan seperti berikut: [17] This Court cited with approval the case referred by the Defendants of Lim Goh Eng Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Off-Shore-CPI Supply Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 275; [2019] CLJU 2143, where the High Court held- “[8] An unless order is an order of the Court which requires a person to do something within a fixed time and states the consequences of transgression. There is abundant authority to the effect that an unless order being a pre-emptory order of the Court, must be adhered to and its non compliance would automatically attract the penalty prescribed in the order. Failure to comply may therefore result in the dismissal of an action or the striking out of the defence. See How Hock Sing @ Low Kim Peng [2015] MLJU 712 and Reiss v. Woolf [1952] 2 All ER 112 [21] Di dalam kes lim Goh Eng Holdings Sdn Bhd V. Off-Shore-Cpi Supply Sdn Bhd [2019] CLJU 2143; [2020] MLJU 275 HC diputuskan seperti berikut: [11] The plaintiff was unable to cite any authority in support of its proposition that an application was required for an action to be struck out pursuant to an unless order. The Unless Order of 1 April 2019, in my judgment, was a self-executing order, which did not require the defendant to make an application. Under the self-executing order, all that would needed to be determined was whether the plaintiff had complied with the terms of the Unless Order. If it had not, the action would be automatically struck out without further order and the plaintiff cannot seek the Court to revive it. [16] It bears mention that unless there are good reasons for non-compliance, disobedience of a peremptory order will be considered contumelious conduct justifying a striking out. This was stated by the Court of Appeal in Hup Soon Omnibus Co Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Lim Chee @ Lam Kum Chee [2017] MLJU 1937 where it was held at para [8]: The Court will pay particular regard to the paramount importance of securing compliance with its order. In Stolzenberg and Others v. CIBC Mellon Trust Co. Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 827, Arden LJ said at paragraph 167: [2019] 1 LNS 2143 Legal Network Series 8 “.... 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 decision as this case. It follows, as Ward LJ said in Hytec Limited v. Coventry City Council [1997] 1 WLR 1666 at 1674 to 1675, that, “if a party intentionally or deliberately... flouts the order, he can expect no mercy.” he has to persuade the Court that in all the circumstances the injustice to him outweighs the interests of administration of justice and the injury to the other party. [22] Di dalam kes Koh Heng Jin @ Koh Heng Leong V. Gan Kooi Ann [2015] 1 LNS 1244 Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan seperti berikut: [40] In our view even though the learned judge did not issue an “unless order”, O. 34 r. 2(2) of the ROC (not O. 34 r. 1 as cited by counsel) clearly contemplates that orders and directions issued by the court during pre-trial case management are peremptory in nature as O. 34 r. (3) of the ROC confers on the court the power to, inter alia, strike out a party’s claim either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, in the event that such party defaults in complying with any order and/or directive issued by the court under the said O. 34 r. 2(2). For ease of reference we set out below the relevant portion of O. 34 r. 2(2) and O. 34 r. 2(3) of the ROC:- “(2) At a pre-trial case management, the Court may consider any matter including the possibility of settlement of all or any of the issues in the action or proceedings and require the parties to furnish the Court with such information as it thinks fit, and the appropriate orders and directions that should be made to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the action or proceedings, including:-

the period within which the plaintiff is to file a bundle of pleadings consisting of one copy of each of the following documents, bound up in proper chronological order and endorsed thereon the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the solicitors for the parties or, in the case of a party who has no solicitor, of the party himself:

the writ; and

(ii) the pleadings (including any affidavits ordered to stand as pleadings), any notice or order for particulars and the particulars given;” “(3) The Court, having given directions under rule 2(2) or rule 3 may either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, if any party defaults in complying with any such directions, dismiss such action or proceedings or strike out the defence or counterclaim or enter judgment or make such order as it thinks fit.” [23] Di dalam kes Mohamed Haniffa Bin Sainudin V Dato' Seri Sulaiman Bin Sainudin & Anor [2024] MLJU 230 HC, diputuskan seperti berikut: [25] Wherefore, this Court finds that there has been gross disregard to the directions given by the Court on the management of this action for trial, and allowed the defendants’ application to have the action struck out with costs for the following reasons: [30] After having given the lead counsel for the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on why the costs ought not to be paid by the plaintiff’s solicitors as is required pursuant to Order 59 rule 6 (1) (c ) and (2) ROC and with no compelling reasons forthcoming for the various non-compliances, I awarded costs of RM 20,000.00 subject to allocatur to be paid to the defendants to be borne by the solicitors for the plaintiff personally. TIADA ALASAN MUNASABAH ATAS KEGAGALAN PEMFAILAN DOKUMEN SEPERTI DIARAHKAN [24] Guaman Ke-2 telah difailkan pada 7.5.2025. Defendan-Defendan telah memfailkan Pernyataan Pembelaan bertarikh 25.6.2025 dan Plaintif telah memfailkan Jawapan kepada Pembelaan bertarikh 4.7.2025. Pengurusan kes pertama bagi Guaman Ke-2 telah diadakan pada 9.6.2025. [25] Ini bermakna pliding dianggap telah ditutup pada 18.7.2026 untuk kes guaman kedua berdasarkan Aturan 18 Kaedah 20 yang diperturunkan di bawah ini:

Close of pleadings (O. 18 r. 20)

The pleadings in an action are deemed to be closed-

at the expiration of fourteen days after service of the reply or, if there is no reply but only a defence to a counterclaim, after service of the defence to the counterclaim. [26] Kegagalan untuk memfailkan dokumen-dokumen Pra-Perbicaraan dalam guaman ini disebabkan oleh kecuaian atau sikap sambil lewa, ISU SAMADA PERMOHONAN MENGHIDUPKAN SEMULA KES DAN RAYUAN TERHADAP PERINTAH PEMBATALAN KES ADALAH SATU SALAHGUNA PROSES [27] Saya merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Lim Oh & Ors v Allen Gledhill 2001 3 CLJ 233 , di mana telah diputuskan bahawa tindakan perayu memfailkan guaman kedua terhadap defendan merupakan salah guna proses kerana sepatutnya perayu merayu terhadap keputusan mahkamah di dalam guaman pertama selepas writ dibatalkan atas permohonan defendan. Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan seperti berikut: [2] The appellants ought to have appealed against the decision of the court in the first suit. The filing of the second suit containing as it did, the same issues and reliefs as in the first suit amounted to a deliberate attempt to circumvent the necessary appeal procedure and therefore constituted an abuse of the process of the court Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Faisal @ Ibrahim bin Hj Siraj & Anor v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors [2023] CLJU 2428; [2024] 1 MLJ 894 CA menyatakan bahawa plaintif sepatutnya memohon untuk kes dihidupkan semula jika ia dibatalkan kerana kegagalan mematuhi arahan bagi persedian perbicaraan, seperti berikut: [16] On 17.12.2019, the High Court had struck out the Plaintiff's claims on the reason that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court's instructions to file the cause papers required for trial, i.e. the Bundle of Agreed Documents, the Agreed Facts and Issues to be tried. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiffs moved an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. B-01 (IM)(NCvC)-35- 01/2020. The appeal was struck out on 06.07.2020 with an award for cost of RMS,000.00 in favour of D7 in which the Court of Appeal had allowed the Respondents to strike out the appeal based on the reason that the Plaintiffs had wrongfully appealed against such order; The Plaintiffs should first apply to the High Court in accordance to Order 34 rule 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012. [28] Di dalam kes Dr Sim Kui Hian v Chong Chieng Jen and other appeals [2021] MLJU 562 dinyatakan bahawa plaintif dibenarkan memilih untuk merayu kepada mahkamah lebih tinggi atas penolakan tuntutan di bawah Aturan 34 ataupun memohon untuk dihidupkan semula ke situ di mahkamah asal , di mana dinyatakan seperti berikut: [37] Counsel for the defendant also raised an argument belatedly during oral submissions that the plaintiff should have applied to set aside the order of dismissal of his claim under Order 34 rule 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 before appealing to the Court of Appeal. We note that the provision uses the permissive “may” when giving the option to the aggrieved party to go before the same court to set aside the order of dismissal of the action. It does not prevent the filing of an appeal. In this case, the learned Judicial Commissioner made various findings of fact in respect of the explanation for the delay that was proffered by counsel for the plaintiff. His Lordship also found counsel for the plaintiff guilty of “prima facie, contempt of court”. In the premises, we do not think that the plaintiff should be compelled to invoke Order 34 rule 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 [29] Ini bermakna, plaintif hanya ada satu pilihan yang perlu di buat iaitu samada merayu terhadap keputusan pembatalan kes ataupun memohon untuk kes dihidupkan semula. [30] Tindakan plaintif merayu terhadap keputusan pembatalan kes dan pada masa yang sama memohon untuk dihidupkan semula kes yang telah dibatalkan adalah salah guna proses. Ini akan memberi kelebihan kepada plaintif kerana plaintif akan mempunyai dua peluang yakni second bite of the cherry. [31] Jika rayuan dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, maka kes ini akan dihidupkan semula. Jika permohonan untuk menghidupkan semula kes dibenarkan di Mahkamah Sesyen, maka kes ini akan dihidupkan semula. [32] Jika permohonan menghidupkan semula kes ditolak seperti di dalam kes ini, plaintif boleh merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Isu rayuan mempunyai natijah yang sama iaitu untuk menghidupkan semula kes bagi kedua-dua rayuan. Plaintif sepatutnya memilih cara mana yang mahu dipakai. Samada Rayuan Ataupun Permohonan Menghidupkan Semula Kes Selepas Dibatalkan [33] Berdasarkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi terkini, plaintif sepatutnya merayu terhadap keputusan pembatalan kes. Saya merujuk kepada dua kes yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur dan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam. [34] Di dalam kes Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur LAKEFRONT RESIDENCE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 201101005895 (934038-V)) ... PLAINTIF DAN 1. TETUAN LUI & BHULLAR (menjalankan perniagaan firma guaman secara Perkongsian) 2. HASNESHPAL SINGH BHULLAR KARAMJIT SINGH (No. K/P: 930716-06-5661) 3. BRYAN LUI SHIEN VIENG (No. K/P: 930823-14- 5309) 4. CHANDNI ANANTHA KRISHNAN (No. K/P: 910925-10-5254) ... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN [2025] CLJU 829 , telah dinyatakan seperti berikut: [18] Having considered the authorities, I am persuaded by the Defendants’ argument. The principle established in Lim Oh remains good law despite the introduction of the ROC

The Federal Court in Lim Oh has established that the proper mode of challenging a striking out or dismissal for disobedience of a peremptory order is by way of appeal. [24] I am clear that the law gives the parties aggrieved with any Court decision or judgment their fair right to appeal. When a party is dissatisfied with the decision or judgment, the party challenges its rightfulness. In layman terms, the party says the decision or judgment is wrong. I cannot set aside my own Order after I have decided to dismiss the Plaintiffs claim but allowed the Defendant’s counter-claim. The Plaintiff placed me in a difficult position to decide on the Setting Aside Application to set aside my own Unless Order. How can I blow hot and cold and flip-flop my decision upon an application to set aside from a dissatisfied party? The decision already made must be respected and adhered to until and unless the appellate Courts sets it aside. This same court that decided cannot be tasked to cancel off its decision later. [35] Di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam di dalam kes JANWELL SDN BHD (No. Syarikat : 201501010494/1135829-H) ... PLAINTIF DAN TEGUH MAJURIA SDN BHD (No. Syarikat : 201101012528/940668-M) ... DEFENDAN [2025] CLJU 14 juga prinsip yang sama dinyatakan , seperti berikut: [1] The Plaintiff's suit was struck out by Order of the Court on 3-102023 (“Order”) due to non-compliance by the Plaintiff with pre-trial case management directions to file witness statements before 28-8-2023. [2] The Plaintiff applied vide Enclosure 149 to set aside the Order dated 3-10-2023 and vide Enclosure 151 to reinstate the suit. I dismissed both applications on 10-12-2024 based on a preliminary objection raised by the Defendant that the Court was functus officio to decide Enclosures 149 and 151. The Plaintiff has appealed. [3] The appeal raises a straightforward question of whether the proper mode of challenging the dismissal of an action for non-compliance with a pre-trial direction of the High Court is by way of an appeal to the Court of Appeal or by the mode undertaken by the Plaintiff in this case, and why. To my mind, this question has been answered by the Federal Court and it is premised on the principle that a Court becomes functus officio once it has decided on a matter. KESIMPULAN [36] Secara ringkasnya plaintif gagal mengemukakan alasan yang memuaskan untuk menyokong permohonan penghidupan semula kes. Plaintif telah menyalahgunakan proses dengan memfailkan secara serentak rayuan terhadap keputusan pembatalan writ dan penyata tuntutan dan juga permohonan penghidupan semula kes. [37] Mode yang sepatutnya digunakan dalam keadaan sebegini oleh plaintif adalah dengan merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi dan bukan memohon untuk kes dihidupkan semula.

[38] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, saya menolak permohonan plaintif untuk menghidupkan semula kes dengan kos sebanyak RM1,000.00. Bertarikh pada hari ini 7/11/2025. Zaman Mohd Noor Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 1 Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur