Inno-Wangsa Oils & Fats Sdn Bhd v Raksam Ingridients Private Limited

Appellant(s): Inno-Wangsa Oils & Fats Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Raksam Ingridients Private Limited

• YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
• YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan

• The appellant, as plaintiff, initiated an Originating Summons in the High Court seeking to set aside two arbitration awards.
• The High Court allowed the respondent's application to strike out the Originating Summons, citing various procedural non-compliances, including failure to plead the specific statutory provision, defects in the supporting affidavit, and filing the application out of time.
• Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal to the Court of Appeal, prompting the respondent to file a Notice of Motion to strike out the appeal documents for further non-compliance with appellate rules.

• Whether the appellant's non-compliance with the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and Practice Direction No.1 of 2017 in preparing the Record of Appeal occasioned serious prejudice or a substantial miscarriage of justice.
• Whether the omission of material and mandatory cause papers from the Record of Appeal constituted a fundamental defect that prevented the Court from properly hearing the appeal by way of re-hearing.
• Whether Rule 3A of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, which disallows preliminary objections based on non-compliance unless it causes substantial miscarriage of justice, could be invoked to save the appellant's appeal.

• The Court of Appeal found a serious breach of Rule 18(4)(a) and (c) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and Practice Direction No.1 of 2017 due to the appellant's omission of crucial documents from the Record of Appeal.
• The Court held that these omissions caused serious prejudice to the respondent and prevented the Court from conducting a proper re-hearing as required by Rule 5(1), rendering the Record of Appeal fundamentally defective and the non-compliance not curable.
• The Court concluded that the appellant's failures amounted to an abuse or contumelious disregard of the rules, and therefore, Rule 3A could not be applied to save the appeal, leading to the striking out of the appellant's Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal.