Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd Hasnol KNM Greentech Sdn Bhd & 1 lagi

Kualiti Alam Sdn Bhd Hasnol KNM Greentech Sdn Bhd & 1 lagi

Because r.5(3) RCA 1994 is mandatory and there were two separate and distinct orders arising from two separate applications, two separate Notices of Appeal were required; failure to file separate notices constituted fatal non‑compliance and justified striking out the single Notice of Appeal, following Deepak Jaikishan and Khairy Jamaluddin precedents.

Citation
W-02(IM)(NCVC)-467-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Perayu: KUALITI ALAM SDN BHD; Respondent / Plaintif: HASNOL KNM GREENTECH SDN BHD; Respondent / Plaintif: KNM PROCESS SYSTEMS SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant (high Court) / Interested Party: BANGKOK BANK BERHAD
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Case Number
W-02(IM)(NCVC)-467-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Two Interlocutory High Court Orders
Outcome
Notice of Appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 R.5(3), Striking Out, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Appeal Interlocutory Applications Injunctions Notice of Appeal Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 R.5(3) Striking Out Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KUALITI ALAM SDN BHD

Appellant / Perayu

HASNOL KNM GREENTECH SDN BHD

Respondent / Plaintif

KNM PROCESS SYSTEMS SDN BHD

Respondent / Plaintif

BANGKOK BANK BERHAD

2nd Defendant (high Court) / Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Two Interlocutory High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single Notice of Appeal can appeal multiple distinct interlocutory orders
  2. 2 Whether compliance with r.5(3) RCA 1994 is mandatory and fatal if not observed
  3. 3 Whether the Court may raise mandatory procedural non-compliance sua sponte

Ratio Decidendi

Because r.5(3) RCA 1994 is mandatory and there were two separate and distinct orders arising from two separate applications, two separate Notices of Appeal were required; failure to file separate notices constituted fatal non‑compliance and justified striking out the single Notice of Appeal, following Deepak Jaikishan and Khairy Jamaluddin precedents.

Court Disposition

Notice of Appeal struck out

Orders

  • Enclosure (15) allowed; Notice of Appeal struck out
  • Costs of RM10,000 awarded to the respondent subject to allocator