NIK AZLEE BIN NIK MOHD AFFANDI 1. DR NIK MUZAIMAN BIN MUSTAPHA 2. DR SHAMSUL KAHAR BIN KAMARUL GHANI 3. DR MAHAYIDIN BIN MUHAMAD 4. PERDAMA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD
Application to set aside dismissal under O 34 r 2(4) was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that non‑compliance with the unless order was due to extraneous circumstances or that there was no intention to flout the order; ignorance or mistake of former solicitors is not a sufficient ground; and a party who has filed an appeal cannot concurrently seek to set aside the same order as that would amount to approbation and reprobation and abuse of process.
- Citation
- DA-22NCVC-22-06/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: NIK AZLEE BIN NIK MOHD AFFANDI; 1st Defendant: DR NIK MUZAIMAN BIN MUSTAPHA; 2nd Defendant: DR SHAMSUL KAHAR BIN KAMARUL GHANI; 3rd Defendant: DR MAHAYIDIN BIN MUHAMAD; 4th Defendant: PERDAMA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 19 November 2019
- Case Number
- DA-22NCVC-22-06/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Medical Negligence (civil Claim) / Application to Reinstate Writ and Statement of Claim After Dismissal Under Order 34
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unless Order, Setting Aside Dismissal, Order 34 Rule 2(4) Rules of Court 2012, Approbate and Reprobate (election), Abuse of Process
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NIK AZLEE BIN NIK MOHD AFFANDI
Plaintiff
DR NIK MUZAIMAN BIN MUSTAPHA
1st Defendant
DR SHAMSUL KAHAR BIN KAMARUL GHANI
2nd Defendant
DR MAHAYIDIN BIN MUHAMAD
3rd Defendant
PERDAMA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence (civil Claim) / Application to Reinstate Writ and Statement of Claim After Dismissal Under Order 34
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order made under an unless order can be set aside under O 34 r 2(4) ROC
- 2 What test applies to set aside a dismissal entered under an unless order
- 3 Whether the plaintiff's or former solicitor's ignorance or mistake constitute 'extraneous circumstances' sufficient to set aside the order
Ratio Decidendi
Application to set aside dismissal under O 34 r 2(4) was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that non‑compliance with the unless order was due to extraneous circumstances or that there was no intention to flout the order; ignorance or mistake of former solicitors is not a sufficient ground; and a party who has filed an appeal cannot concurrently seek to set aside the same order as that would amount to approbation and reprobation and abuse of process.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application in Encl 86 dismissed with costs of RM3,000 to each defendant subject to allocatur
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment