Cempaka Mewah Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Ukur Dan Pemetaan Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus

Appellant(s): CEMPAKA MEWAH SDN BHD (In Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation) (Liquidator appointed on 17.4.2003) c/o KPMG CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING PLT

Respondent(s): Pengarah Ukur Dan Pemetaan Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus

• YA Datuk Hanipah Binti Farikullah
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

• The appellant, a developer in liquidation, sought a declaration that its application for a Certificate of Proposed Strata Plan (CPSP) for the Cape Nautica Villas Project was in order, which the respondent had dismissed.
• The respondent dismissed the CPSP application because car parks were not shown as accessory parcels and the original approved plan was not submitted.
• The High Court dismissed the appellant's Originating Summons, finding the mode of commencement improper (should have been judicial review) and agreeing with the respondent's grounds for refusal.

• Whether the Court should follow the strict and literal interpretation of Section 69(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Rule 7(2) & (3A) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (as applied in *Krishnasamy*), or prefer a purposive approach to statutory interpretation.
• Whether the appellant's application to adduce further evidence (documents from a prior project) satisfied the requisites or threshold for admitting new evidence on appeal.

• The Court departed from the strict literal interpretation in *Krishnasamy* and *Marubeni*, preferring a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, holding that the *Ladd v Marshall* conditions (codified in Rule 7(3A) RCA 1994) apply cumulatively to all applications to admit further evidence on appeal.
• The Court found that the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions for admitting new evidence, as the documents were available with reasonable diligence at the High Court trial and would not have had a determining influence on the High Court's decision.
• The new evidence was deemed irrelevant because the statutory requirement for including accessory parcels in a proposed strata plan (Section 8A(2) STA) only came into force in 2015, after the appellant's prior project.