CIMB Bank Berhad & Ors v Tan Hoo Eng

Appellant(s):

• Cimb Bank Berhad
• Janny Cheah

Respondent(s): Tan Hoo Eng

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The appellants filed civil appeal records within the prescribed ninety-day period under the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, but due to a clerical error, the records for two related appeals were cross-filed (swapped) between the respective case files.
• Following a Court direction clarifying that civil procedure applied to the matter, the appellants promptly filed corrected appeal records to rectify the cross-filing error and invited the respondent to inspect the documents for any omissions.
• The respondent moved to strike out the appeals on the basis that the corrected records were filed without leave of the Court, prompting the appellants to file applications for an extension of time to regularize the 5 April 2022 records.

• Whether an extension of time should be granted to regularize appeal records where the original filing was timely but contained a genuine clerical cross-filing error.
• Whether the nature of contempt proceedings arising from a High Court’s criminal jurisdiction is civil or criminal for the purpose of determining the applicable appellate procedural rules.
• Whether the respondent’s striking out applications remained sustainable following the Federal Court’s definitive ruling on the applicable procedural regime for the underlying matter.

• The Court granted the extension of time, finding that the cross-filing was a genuine mistake without dishonest intent and that the appellants had acted with transparency and promptness in seeking to rectify the error.
• The Court held that the Federal Court had definitively resolved the procedural uncertainty by ruling that contempt proceedings are civil in nature, thereby confirming that the appellants’ reliance on civil appellate procedure was correct.
• The Court dismissed the striking out motions, ruling that the grant of the extension of time cured any procedural irregularities and that dismissing the appeals would constitute a collateral attack on the Federal Court’s binding determination.