DR MUNIR ZAMAN 1. ) THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM IN MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM 3. ) UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM MALAYSIA 4. ) DR. CHRISTINE THELMA ENNEW 5. ) DR. HAIDER ABBAS F. MOHAMED (ALSO KNOWN AS HAIDER ABBAS F. AL

WA-22NCvC-828-12/2020 Kand. 227 26/08/2024 14:31:39 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA BAHAGIAN SIVIL NO. GUAMAN SIVIL : WA-22NCvC-828-12/2020 ANTARA DR MUNIR ZAMAN … PLAINTIF DAN 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM IN MALAYSIA SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 199801017391/473520-K) 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM 3. UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM MALAYSIA BHD 4. DR. CHRISTINE THELMA ENNEW 5. DR. HAIDER ABBAS F. MOHAMED (Juga Dikenali Sebagai Haider Abbas F. Almurib) (Juga Dikenali Sebagai Haider Abbas) 6. LIZDAWATI BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGEMENT Introduction 1. The Plaintiff was appointed as an Associate Professor at University Nottingham, Malaysia. There are 2 other entities linked to the S/N XDgTIh/ChUaaYOYj5hzhhQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Plaintiff’s claim i.e. The University of Nottingham in Malaysia Sdn Bhd and The University of Nottingham UK ( all to be collectively as “the universities” ). 2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the universities is for wrongful termination of contract of employment. The Plaintiff had also named 3 individuals who were attached to the universities whom the Plaintiff claims have wronged him both personally and professionally. 3. The Court at the beginning of the proceedings had using the power given under Order 34 and Order 15 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the rules) directed the claim against the universities and the 3 individuals be tried separately. 4. Order 34 stipulates as follows: 1. Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O. 34 r. 1) (1) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of proceedings, of its own motion, direct any party or parties to the proceedings to appear before the Court, in order that the Court may make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit so that- (a) all matters which must or can be dealt with on interlocutory applications and have not S/N XDgTIh/ChUaaYOYj5hzhhQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal already been dealt with may so far as possible be dealt with; and (b) such directions may be given as to the future course of the action as appear best adapted to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal thereof. 5. Order 15 states: 5. Court may order separate trials (O. 15 r. 5) (1) If claims in respect of two or more causes of action are included by a plaintiff in the same action or by a defendant in a counterclaim, or if two or more plaintiffs or defendants are parties to the same action, and it appears to the Court that the joinder of causes of action or of parties, as the case may be, may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient. 6. In pursuance of the Court’s directive the Court proceeded for trial of Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract against the universities. This claim is awaiting the Court’s decision after the completion of the trial. S/N XDgTIh/ChUaaYOYj5hzhhQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Events which transpired on 10/6/20124 7. On 10/6/2024 during case management the Plaintiff’s counsel who was newly appointed taking over from the earlier lawyer informed the Court, orally, that he wished to withdraw the Plaintiff’s claim against the 3 individual Defendants and only proceed with the claim against the universities for breach of contract. 8. The Defendant’s counsel had no objection to the withdrawal but asked that the Plaintiff be disallowed to refile the claim against the 3 Defendants. The Court’s decision 9. As the Defendant had no objection to the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd to the 6th Defendant the Court struck off the claim against these Defendants. 10. However since the issues being claimed against the 3 Defendants had yet to be tried the Court using its discretion allowed the Plaintiff the liberty to file afresh. If the Plaintiff’s claim is time barred the Defendant had the liberty to raise that as a defense in the event a new claim is filed. 11. In this case the Court disallowed cost as the Defendant from the beginning had not raised any objections against the misjoinder of issues and parties in the Plaintiff’s claim and should not now benefit from their inaction. S/N XDgTIh/ChUaaYOYj5hzhhQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Dated: 21.8.2024 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur S/N XDgTIh/ChUaaYOYj5hzhhQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Lingswaran Singh Tetuan Lingswaran Singh & Associates No. 73, Jalan Mahligai 3C Bandar Bukit Raja, 41050 Klang Selangor For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Lai Wai Fong; Haseena Elaine Kaur Tetuan. Shearn Delamore & Co. Tingkat 7, Wisma Hamzah Kwong-Hing, No. 1, Leboh Ampang, 50100 Kuala Lumpur S/N XDgTIh/ChUaaYOYj5hzhhQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal