Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1120
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
REGAL ELITE LETRIK SDN BHD LWN. COUNTRY GARDEN DANGA BAY SDN BHD; CIMB BANK BERHAD (GARNISI)
[Permohonan Pelaksanaan No: JA-37G-5-02/2023]
A judgment debtor can contest a garnishee order, and costs in interlocutory proceedings are typically payable at the conclusion of proceedings unless otherwise ordered.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 49 r 3(1), Order 59 r 7 - Garnishee proceedings - The court established that a judgment debtor has the right to apply to set aside a garnishee order, and costs awarded in interlocutory proceedings are generally payable at the conclusion of the proceedings unless ordered otherwise. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 26, 42)
(B) Costs - The court ruled that costs awarded by the Court of Appeal must be paid forthwith unless expressly stated otherwise, emphasizing the importance of the court's discretion in determining costs at any stage of proceedings. (Paras 36, 41)
Facts of the case:
The judgment creditor filed a civil action against the judgment debtor in the High Court. The High Court's decision to strike out the action was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which awarded costs to the judgment creditor. The judgment debtor contested the garnishee order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the garnishee order was valid and that the judgment debtor must pay the awarded costs.
Issues: The main issues were whether the judgment debtor could contest the garnishee order and the timing of the payment of costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the judgment debtor could contest the garnishee order and that costs awarded by the Court of Appeal should generally be paid forthwith.
Result: The application by the judgment debtor to set aside the garnishee order was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the judgment creditor.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil action details and court decisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. correspondence regarding judgment execution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. garnishee order proceedings set. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. judgment debtor's rights in garnishee proceedings. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. arguments on immediate payment of costs. (Para 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 6. distinction of case principles regarding costs. (Para 13 , 15 , 18) |
| 7. interpretation of costs payment timing. (Para 14 , 16 , 24) |
| 8. procedural evolution in cost assessment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. current rules on cost determination. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. clarification on costs in interlocutory proceedings. (Para 28 , 30) |
| 11. interpretation of 'conclusion of proceedings'. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. finality of costs awarded in appeal. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 13. persuasive authority on immediate cost payment. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 14. benefits of timely cost payment. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 15. court's decision and order on costs. (Para 43) |
[1] Pemiutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai JC) membawa tindakan sivil terhadap Penghutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai JD) di Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru guaman sivil JA-22NCvC-64-05/2021.
[2] Mahkamah Tinggi membenarkan permohonan JD untuk membatalkan tindakan JC menurut A 18 k 19 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai KKM) pada 2 Mei 2021.
[3] Atas rayuan JC ke Mahkamah Rayuan, Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuan JC pada 26 Oktober 2022 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa:
"1. Rayuan Perayu dibenarkan;
2. Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru yang membenarkan permohonan Responden untuk membatalkan dan menolak Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 2 Mei 2021 adalah diketepikan;
3. Perintah terhadap kos sebanvak RM8,000.00 yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru pada 30 Januari 2022 adalah diketepikan; dan
4. Responden membayar kepada Perayu kos sebanyak RM15,000.00 DISINI DAN DIBAWAH tertakluk keoada fi Alokatur."
[4] JC telah menghantar sesalinan Penghakiman Mahkamah bermeterai serta Perakuan Alokatur kepada peguam JD pada 15 November 2022.
[5] Pada 15 November 2022, peguam JD membalas surat tersebut dengan menyatakan antara lain bahawa menurut A 59 k 7 KKM sebarang pembayaran kos adalah dibayar pada penghujung prosiding melainkan jika Mahkamah memerintahkan sebaliknya.
[6] JC telah membalas surat tersebut melalui surat bertarikh 24 November 2022 di mana JC antara lain menghujahkan bahawa memandangkan Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan pada 26 Oktober 2022 dan JC telah diawardkan kos RM15,000.00 serta tiada rayuan difailkan ke Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam tempoh masa yang dibenarkan, maka Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut telah muktamad dan JC berhak menuntut kos tersebut dari JD.
[7] Susulan itu, JC telah memfailkan Notis Permohonan di Mahkamah ini untuk memohon Perintah Garnisi menunjuk sebab menurut A 49 KKM. Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan perintah garnisi menunjuk sebab pada 21 Mac 2023 dan menurut A 49 k 3(1)(b) KKM, Mahkamah telah mengarahkan JC untuk menyampaikan perintah garnisi tersebut kepada JD.
[8] Mahkamah menetapkan tarikh bicara garnisi menunjuk sebab pada 18 April 2023. Pada tarikh bicara garnisi menunjuk sebab, JD telah memfailkan hujahan bertulis untuk antara lain mengetepikan dan/atau menolak perintah garnisi menunjuk sebab yang menjadi asas pertikaian antara pihak-pihak.
Analisis Dan Keputusan Mahkamah
[9] Berkenaan persoalan sama ada JD berhak mengambil bahagian dalam prosiding garnisi untuk antara lain mengetepikan dan/atau membatalkan perintah garnisi menunjuk sebab, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Goh Su Liat (Telecommunication Authority of Singapore, Garnishee) ; di mana Mahkamah Tinggi Singapura memutuskan bahawa:
"Counsel for the judgment creditor says that it is doubtful that the judgment debtor can come forward to dispute the debt when the garnishee is not disputing. He argues that a garnishee proceeding is between a judgment creditor and the garnish
