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 (Pembatalan 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). LATAR BELAKANG [2] Pada pengurusan kes bertarikh 1.10.2024, Mahkamah telah memberikan, antara lainnya, arahan-arahan berikut: 18/08/2025 12:02:24 WA-A52NCvC-534-07/2024 Kand. 20 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 [3] 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 ALASAN KENAPA WRIT DAN PENYATA TUNTUTAN DIBATALKAN [4] 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 sepuluh bulan dalam mematuhi arahan pemfailan dokumen selaras dengan A.34 KKM 2012 dan Arahan Hakim Malaya adalah tidak munasabah. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] Plaintif menyatakan bahawa terdapat satu lagi kes yang difailkan dalam bulan Februari 2025 akan dipohon untuk disatukan dengan kes ini. Namun, setakat ini belum ada lagi pemfailan di buat. Sepatutnya untuk kes tersebut, pemfailan ikatan dokumen dan lain-lain dokumen juga sudah selesai. [8] Jika kedua dua kes ini disatukan, maka dokumen-dokumen untuk bicara sudah 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 . [9] 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. [10] 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. “Unless Order” terpakai [11] 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; dan KES-KES SANDARAN [12] 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. [13] 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 [14] 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. [15] 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.” [16] 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. PENUTUP [17] Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, writ dan penyataan tuntutan terpinda dibatalkan tanpa kos. Bertarikh pada hari ini 13.8.2025. Zaman Mohd Noor Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 1 Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur