A judgment in default is regularly obtained if service of pleadings is properly executed; a defendant must show an arguable case on the merits and reasonable promptitude in filing an application to set aside such judgment.

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] Once proceedings are commenced and the cause papers are served, if and when a Defendant fails to enter an appearance, the Plaintiff will normally enter Judgment in Default of Appearance. In those circumstances, it is common for such Defendant to then attempt to set aside the said judgment in default.

[2] This judgment deals with such an application filed by the 1st Defendant herein vide encl 42 to set aside a judgment in default entered/obtained by the Plaintiff on 30 November 2023 due to the Defendants' failure to enter an appearance in this suit.

[3] The 1st Defendant in the application in Enclosure 42 herein sought the following reliefs:

a. that the 1st Defendant be given leave to make this application;

b. that an extension of time be given to the 1st Defendant if needed;

c. that the Certificate of Non-Appearance in respect of the 1st Defendant dated 11 October 2023 be set aside;

d. that the Judgment in Default of Appearance dated 30 November 2023 be set aside;

e. that the Judgment (Assessment of Damages Proceedings) dated 8 February 2024 be set aside;

f. that leave be given to the 1st Defendant to enter her appearance and file her Defence within 14 days from the date this application is allowed;

g. that all execution proceedings in respect of this Civil Suit and in Garnishee Proceedings vide PA-37G-31-07/2024 be stayed until full and final disposal of this application including any appeal; and

h. that the Garnishee Order dated 11th September 2024 be set aside.

[4] Having heard parties submit with the aid of their written submissions, I dismissed the application to set aside the judgment in default with costs. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the 1st Defendant has since filed an appeal and as such, I will in this judgment set out the salient background facts, the parties' respective contentions and my reasons for having dismissed the application in encl 42.

Background Facts And Chronology Of Events

[5] Before proceeding to determine the grounds in support of this application, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events since the inception of these proceedings and the same are as follows.

[6] On 25 August 2023, the Plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of the deceased, Adelina Lisao commenced this action against the Defendants. Briefly, the late Adelina Lisao was a domestic maid working for the Defendants and passed away on 11 February 2018. The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants was for damages based on causes of action of Inter Alia breach of contract and tort of assault and battery.

[7] The pleadings/cause papers were then served on the 1st Defendant by way of AR Registered post on 6 September 2023 at her last known address at No 67, Medan Kota Permai 2, Taman Kota Permai, 14000.00 Bukit Mertajam, Pulau Pinang which appears to have been accepted by the 1st Defendant herself on 8 September 2023 as signified by her signature on the said AR card.

[8] The pleadings/cause papers were also served on the 2nd Defendant by way of AR Registered post on 6 September 2023 at her last known address at No 11, Lorong Sejahtera 1, Taman Sejahtera, 14000.00 Bukit Mertajam, Pulau Pinang but the same was returned as unclaimed.

[9] In respect of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff then filed an affidavit of service which was affirmed by the process server on 26 September 2023.

[10] However, the 1st Defendant failed t