LIM GIM CHOO (720726-07-5040) SOO KAR WONG (481016-07-5251)

LIM GIM CHOO (720726-07-5040) SOO KAR WONG (481016-07-5251)

The defendant complied with the pre-conditions of Order 34 r 10 ROC 2012 and the court, exercising its case management powers, was entitled to permit referral to the defendant's chosen specialist; the plaintiff's stated reasons for refusal were insufficient, therefore the Magistrate's order was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs in the cause.

Citation
PA-11A-7-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): LIM GIM CHOO; Respondent (defendant): SOO KAR WONG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Case Number
PA-11A-7-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Decision; High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Order 34 Rule 10 Rules of Court 2012, Case Management, Independent Medical Examination, Referral to Defendant's Specialist, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Medical Negligence/examination Motor Vehicle Accident Order 34 Rule 10 Rules of Court 2012 Case Management Independent Medical Examination Referral to Defendant's Specialist +1 more

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIM GIM CHOO

Appellant (plaintiff)

SOO KAR WONG

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Decision; High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate was entitled to order referral of the plaintiff to the defendant's chosen specialist under Order 34 r 10 ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the defendant complied with the pre-conditions of O.34 r 10(3) ROC 2012
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's reasons for refusing the referral (movement control, COVID‑19 risk, availability of other specialists, illegality) justified non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant complied with the pre-conditions of Order 34 r 10 ROC 2012 and the court, exercising its case management powers, was entitled to permit referral to the defendant's chosen specialist; the plaintiff's stated reasons for refusal were insufficient, therefore the Magistrate's order was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in the cause
  • Magistrate's order permitting respondent to refer appellant to respondent's chosen specialist is affirmed