1. [Type here] ILYANA ISKANDAR [Type here]
ADJOURNMENT
Court has a wide discretion to adjourn the hearing of an application or trial as it thinks fit
in the interest of justice.
There is a duty upon the court to exercise its discretion judicially on established ground.
Re Dato Mohamed Pilus Bin Yusoh ex parte Southern Bank Bhd – the matter of
adjournment is within the discretion of the trial judge and an appellate court will not interfere with
a refusal of adjournment unless it appears that the result of such a refusal has been to defeat
the rights of an applicant altogether or it is an injustice to such an applicant. In this case, its also
stated that in bankruptcy proceedings the matter of adjournment assumes a difference line.
General practice: when a party to an action is absent at the date of hearing, the court will
enquire as to the reasons for his absence and if it deems fit, it will adjourn the matter,
subject to appropriate order as costs.
Cannot be sough as a matter of right. Entirely discretion of the court
Hup San Timber Trading Co Sdn Bhd v Tan Ah Law: any delay occasioned by what appears
to be an in adequate reason for absence can be compensated by an award of appropriate cost.
In contrast with Go Pak Hoong Tracktor and Building Construction v Syarikat Pasir
Perdana: on the date of hearing, df’s solicitor sent telegram to pf’s solicitor at Kota Bharu
requesting him to mention on behalf and seek an adjournment on the ground that the df was
sick & the solicitor was unable to get flight to Kota Bahru. The trial court refuse the adjournment
and entered JID against the df.
Bunga Singh v Koh Bon Keo : both appellant and his counsel were present at the hearing, as
a result, the case was dismissed. Appellant appeal at HC on the ground that not his mistake that
his counsel failed to appear. New trial should be ordered. Justice will be done to the other side
by compensating the other side for any costs thrown away.
Must give reasonable notice. Court will be more strict on the last minutes postponement
Lee Ah Tee v Ong Tiow Phen: Adjournment cannot be sought as a matter of right. It is entirely
at the discretion of the court.
Sheikh Abdul Aziz Sheikh Syukor & Ors v Sheikh Mustapha Sheikh Shukor: interest of
justice here considered all parties either Df, Pf and even the court.
![[Type here] ILYANA ISKANDAR [Type here]
ADJOURNMENT
Court has a wide discretion to adjourn the hearing of an application or trial as it thinks fit
in the interest of justice.
There is a duty upon the court to exercise its discretion judicially on established ground.
Re Dato Mohamed Pilus Bin Yusoh ex parte Southern Bank Bhd – the matter of
adjournment is within the discretion of the trial judge and an appellate court will not interfere with
a refusal of adjournment unless it appears that the result of such a refusal has been to defeat
the rights of an applicant altogether or it is an injustice to such an applicant. In this case, its also
stated that in bankruptcy proceedings the matter of adjournment assumes a difference line.
General practice: when a party to an action is absent at the date of hearing, the court will
enquire as to the reasons for his absence and if it deems fit, it will adjourn the matter,
subject to appropriate order as costs.
Cannot be sough as a matter of right. Entirely discretion of the court
Hup San Timber Trading Co Sdn Bhd v Tan Ah Law: any delay occasioned by what appears
to be an in adequate reason for absence can be compensated by an award of appropriate cost.
In contrast with Go Pak Hoong Tracktor and Building Construction v Syarikat Pasir
Perdana: on the date of hearing, df’s solicitor sent telegram to pf’s solicitor at Kota Bharu
requesting him to mention on behalf and seek an adjournment on the ground that the df was
sick & the solicitor was unable to get flight to Kota Bahru. The trial court refuse the adjournment
and entered JID against the df.
Bunga Singh v Koh Bon Keo : both appellant and his counsel were present at the hearing, as
a result, the case was dismissed. Appellant appeal at HC on the ground that not his mistake that
his counsel failed to appear. New trial should be ordered. Justice will be done to the other side
by compensating the other side for any costs thrown away.
Must give reasonable notice. Court will be more strict on the last minutes postponement
Lee Ah Tee v Ong Tiow Phen: Adjournment cannot be sought as a matter of right. It is entirely
at the discretion of the court.
Sheikh Abdul Aziz Sheikh Syukor & Ors v Sheikh Mustapha Sheikh Shukor: interest of
justice here considered all parties either Df, Pf and even the court.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/adjournment-180227030537/85/Adjournment-1-320.jpg)
