geram judge.

And on 21 June 2004, this court fixed 21 and 22 September 2004 for trial. Counsel present at this case management date made no objection to these trial dates.

On 21 August 2004, the plaintiff's counsel wrote to this court requesting a postponement on the ground that the plaintiff has to accompany his son to the United Kingdom to enter a medical faculty in the University of London. This application was rejected by this court. 

When this case came up for hearing on 21 September 2004, the plaintiff was absent.

First, realising that his earlier request for postponement was rejected the plaintiff still absent himself on the day of trial. 

Second, the task of accompanying his son to the United Kingdom could have been undertaken by someone else or by him personally at an earlier date so that he could return to attend the trial. 

Third, accompanying a child, who is of mature age, to study in the United Kingdom, whether in a medical faculty or otherwise, is not a necessity. There are numerous students these days who travel on their own to pursue their tertiary education overseas, unaccompanied by anyone.

-- Per James Foong J in Tee Ha Leong v. Messrs Low & Lim [2005] 4 MLJ 426.

I burst out laughing reading this.

But yes, I totally get his frustration.