SHAMINEE A/P SUPPIAH [ Passport No.: 740114075734 ] CHE YUSOFF BUN CHE KASSIM [ Passport No.: 720317086339 ]

SHAMINEE A/P SUPPIAH [ Passport No.: 740114075734 ] CHE YUSOFF BUN CHE KASSIM [ Passport No.: 720317086339 ]

The High Court held the distinction between 'order' and 'ruling' was immaterial for practical effect; the judge's refusal to admit the supplemental documents was properly made in the context of pre-trial directions and ongoing trial, the delay was inordinate and prejudicial, no formal application with affidavit was filed to justify extension, and therefore the decision was non-appealable at this stage and the appeal was incompetent and dismissed.

Citation
PA-12A-17-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/plaintif: Shaminee A/P Suppiah; Responden/defendan: Che Yusoff bin Che Kassim
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 April 2024
Case Number
PA-12A-17-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / High Court Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal/re Hearing of Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirming Sessions Court's refusal to admit Lampiran 52 upheld
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Documents, Pre Trial Case Management, Delay and Inordinate Filing, Appealability of Rulings Versus Orders, Finality of Decisions
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Litigation Appeals Law Admissibility of Documents Pre Trial Case Management Delay and Inordinate Filing Appealability of Rulings Versus Orders Finality of Decisions

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaminee A/P Suppiah

Perayu/plaintif

Che Yusoff bin Che Kassim

Responden/defendan

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / High Court Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal/re Hearing of Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's decision rejecting supplemental bundle (Lampiran 52) is an order or a ruling and whether that distinction affects appealability
  2. 2 Whether a decision refusing admissibility of documents made after the case was called for hearing is appealable
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the supplemental documents was inordinate and justifies refusal of admission

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the distinction between 'order' and 'ruling' was immaterial for practical effect; the judge's refusal to admit the supplemental documents was properly made in the context of pre-trial directions and ongoing trial, the delay was inordinate and prejudicial, no formal application with affidavit was filed to justify extension, and therefore the decision was non-appealable at this stage and the appeal was incompetent and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirming Sessions Court's refusal to admit Lampiran 52 upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of MYR 5000 to be paid to Respondent, subject to taxation