Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 376 views

    10.4 Syed Omar V PNB

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    1. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant in 2006 which was struck out by the High Court for failure to comply with a discovery order and failure to progress the case. 2. In 2010, the respondent filed a new suit based on the same facts against the appellant. The High Court struck out the new suit but the Court of Appeal allowed the suit. 3. The Federal Court allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal's decision. The Federal Court held that the High Court correctly considered the respondent's previous breaches and non-compliance in the 2006 suit when dismissing the new 2010 suit to prevent abuse of the court's process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10.4 Syed Omar V PNB

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    376 views2 pages
    1. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant in 2006 which was struck out by the High Court for failure to comply with a discovery order and failure to progress the case. 2. In 2010, the respondent filed a new suit based on the same facts against the appellant. The High Court struck out the new suit but the Court of Appeal allowed the suit. 3. The Federal Court allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal's decision. The Federal Court held that the High Court correctly considered the respondent's previous breaches and non-compliance in the 2006 suit when dismissing the new 2010 suit to prevent abuse of the court's process.

    Original Description:

    kes

    Original Title

    10.4 Syed Omar v Pnb

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant in 2006 which was struck out by the High Court for failure to comply with a discovery order and failure to progress the case. 2. In 2010, the respondent filed a new suit based on the same facts against the appellant. The High Court struck out the new suit but the Court of Appeal allowed the suit. 3. The Federal Court allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal's decision. The Federal Court held that the High Court correctly considered the respondent's previous breaches and non-compliance in the 2006 suit when dismissing the new 2010 suit to prevent abuse of the court's process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    376 views2 pages

    10.4 Syed Omar V PNB

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    1. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant in 2006 which was struck out by the High Court for failure to comply with a discovery order and failure to progress the case. 2. In 2010, the respondent filed a new suit based on the same facts against the appellant. The High Court struck out the new suit but the Court of Appeal allowed the suit. 3. The Federal Court allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal's decision. The Federal Court held that the High Court correctly considered the respondent's previous breaches and non-compliance in the 2006 suit when dismissing the new 2010 suit to prevent abuse of the court's process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    10.

    Kehadiran dan Kegagalan Hadir ke Pengurusan Kes sebelum bicara

    SYED OMAR BIN SYED MOHAMED v. PERBADANAN NASIONAL


    BERHAD [2012] 9 CLJ 557
    FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
    ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN CJ (MALAYA), HASHIM YUSOFF FCJ,
    ABDULL HAMID EMBONG FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ, ZAINUN ALI FCJ
    Summary of Facts
    1. The respondent (P) had filed an action against the appellant (D) in the High Court (the
    2006 suit). Pursuant to an application by the defendant for discovery of documents, an
    order was issued against the plaintiff to file an affidavit to disclose all documents in its
    possession within a stipulated time.
    2. The court on its own volition had issued a notice to show cause to the plaintiff since (i) it
    failed to comply with the order for discovery; and (ii) it did not lodge any appeal against
    the order.
    3. The Deputy Registrar then proceeded to strike out the 2006 suit holding that the plaintiffs
    delay in proceeding with the further prosecution of the suit was an intentional and
    contumelious default. The plaintiffs appeal was dismissed.
    4. The plaintiff did not file any appeal against the said decision but chose to file the present
    action (the 2010 suit) based on the same facts and relief as set out in the 2006 suit since
    no statutory limitation had set in.
    5. The defendants application to strike out the 2010 suit was allowed by the High Court
    holding that pursuant to O. 34 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) and its inherent
    jurisdiction, the court had the power to dismiss an action for want of prosecution.
    6. The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs appeal.
    7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the defendant appealed to this court.
    Issue:
    Whether the plaintiffs part in not complying with the discovery order within the specified time
    bore no relationship to the default on the plaintiffs part to comply with O. 34 r. 2(1) of the RHC.
    Judgment:
    The court allowed this appeal with costs. The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the
    order of the High Court is hereby restored.
    Plaintiff/
    N/A
    Applicant Arguments

    Defendant Arguments
    Courts decision and
    reasoning

    N/A
    1. Under O. 34 of the RHC, it requires the High Court to take into
    account all the breaches and non-compliances by the plaintiff at
    the time of evaluation of its failure to progress the case before
    deciding whether to dismiss the action.
    2. The Court of Appeal was wrong in deciding that the plaintiff
    could re-file and maintain the 2010 suit in spite of holding that
    the 2006 suit was rightfully dismissed for delay in failing to
    progress with the case.
    3. There was clearly an abuse of the process of the court and the
    2010 suit ought to be struck out.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy