Deepak Jaikishan v. A Santamil

This case concerns an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision regarding the striking out of a notice of appeal.
The plaintiffs initially filed a writ in the High Court claiming damages against nine defendants for conspiracy to cause injury by unlawful means.
Each defendant filed an application to strike out the plaintiff's writ.
The High Court allowed these applications, citing a failure to plead material facts.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal, filing a single notice of appeal.
All defendants except the eighth filed motions to strike out the notice of appeal, arguing that a separate notice should have been filed for each defendant. The Court of Appeal allowed these motions.
The Court of Appeal initially found the appeal against the eighth defendant still valid, but later dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the eighth defendant, who argued the notice of appeal was bad in law. The Court of Appeal proceeded to hear the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court.
The eighth defendant then appealed to the Federal Court, which allowed the appeal, affirming the High Court's original decision.

Whether a preliminary objection can be used to challenge a defective notice of appeal.
Whether a single notice of appeal is sufficient for decisions on multiple separate interlocutory applications.

Rule 27 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA 1994): Requires all applications to the Court of Appeal to be made via motion.
Parties must file a notice of motion for any application requiring a decision by the Court of Appeal.
The eighth defendant raised a preliminary objection instead of filing a notice of motion.
Rule 3A of the RCA 1994: Generally disallows preliminary objections based on non-compliance with rules unless it causes a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The court found that proceeding against the eighth defendant alone, when the notice of appeal had been deemed defective, would constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The plaintiffs' cause of action relied on conspiracy, and claims against the other alleged co-conspirators had been dismissed.
Federal Court reaffirmed its inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice, citing Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd [2007] 4 CLJ 725, [2007] 5 MLJ 501.
The court held that the preliminary objection should have been allowed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
The first question of law was answered in the affirmative: A preliminary objection can be used to challenge a defective notice of appeal if a substantial miscarriage of justice would occur.