A pattern of non-compliance and delay by a defendant can justify the granting of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff when there is no real defense.

JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain JC:

[1] This Court granted an order in terms of the Plaintiffs application for a summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of 2012 (RoC) on 9 September 2024. The Defendant had not filed his Affidavit in Reply to the said summary judgment application. He was directed two months prior on 23 July 2024, to do so. At the hearing on 9 September 2024, his counsel informed this Court that efforts to contact the Defendant were made since July but to no avail. The Defendant's legal team believed him to be not in the country. With no instructions, this Court was only left with the Defence filed.

[2] After duly considering all the pleadings and the Plaintiff's application, an order for summary judgment was granted against the Defendant. Two months later, and a day before the time to lodge appeal expires, the Defendant filed his appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[3] In this case, thee was blatant delay and non-compliance to the time lines by the Defendant. The chronology of this case shows with much clarity the Defendant's abuse of the Court process:

Delay and non-compliance: The Defendant has consistently delayed the proceedings and failed to comply with Court directions. This is evident from:

• 14 September 2023 — The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant;

• 17 October 2023 — At the first mention of this case before the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR), the Plaintiff trying to effect service of the its claim on the Defendant;

• 7 November 2023 — Several efforts to serve the claim on the Defendant were made but the Plaintiff was unsuccessful;

• 24 November 2023 — The Plaintiff finally able to contact the Defendant — the claim was arranged to be served personally at a meeting with the Defendant on 27 November 2023, failing which the Plaintiff was to file an application for substituted service (SS);

• 8 February 2023 — The Plaintiff filed its application for SS filed (Encl 4) because the Defendant had failed to meet to accept service of the Plaintiff's claim;

• 27 December 2024 — The Plaintiff withdrew Encl 4 as the Defendant had hired legal counsel — the SAR directed Defence to be filed by 19 January 2024, and the Plaintiffs Reply by 9 February 2024

• 19 February 2024 — All pleadings were filed and case mgmt. The Defendant informed the SAR that he wanted to resolve the matter and sought a case management date;

• 25 March 2024 — Again, the Defendant did not present any offer to propose resolution. The Defendant sought for more time;

• 23 April 2024 — The Defendant still had not forwarded any proposed settlement. A final case management. date was sought

• 14 May 2024 — The Plaintiff had not received anything from the Defendant. He informed that he had contacted LHDN to seek instalment payment;s

• 5 June 2024 — The Plaintiff informed the SAR that it had not received anything for consideration of instalment payment — the Court instructed parties to file common bundles of documents together with Agreed Facts & Issues to be Tried;

• 4 July 2024 — The Court was informed that as there were no proposed settlement from the Defendant, the Plaintiff intended to file application for Summary Judgment;

• 23 July 2024 — The Plaintiff had filed application for Summary Judgment (Encl 13), the Defendant was directed to file his Affidavit-In-Reply by 7 August 2024 and the Plaintiff to file its Affidavit-In-Response by 21 August 2024;

• 21 August 2024 — The Defendant had not complied with the Court 's direction. His lawyers informed the Court that they were made to understand that the Defendant was overseas and not in the country and thus did not have any instructions.

The Court fixed a hearing date for Encl 13 on 9 September 2024

[5] On 9 September 2024 the Defendant's lawyers informed this Court that they had been trying to contact the Defendant since July 2024. They did not have instructions to respond to the Encl 13. This Court granted an order in terms A summary judgment against the Defendant was ordered.

[6] This Court