Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LEE HEAVY MACHINERY WORKS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LISTARI MARINA (MM2H) SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Grounds of Appeal | Reference |
|---|---|
| The default judgment was obtained in accordance with procedural rules and is therefore regular and valid. | (!) (!) |
| The defendants failed to establish a meritorious defense on the merits that would warrant setting aside the judgment. | (!) |
| The affidavits supporting the motion to set aside the judgment were not properly deposed by authorized persons with personal knowledge. | (!) |
| The alleged defenses were unsupported by evidence or contradicted by the plaintiff’s evidence. | (!) |
| Non-compliance with procedural requirements, such as prior notice before judgment, does not invalidate a properly obtained judgment under the rules. | (!) |
| The defendants' explanations for their failure to respond or defend within the stipulated time were insufficient. | (!) |
| The defendants disregarded court directions, further justifying the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment. | (!) |
| The application to set aside the default judgment was properly dismissed as the judgment was regular and the defendants lacked a genuine defense. | (!) |
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff purchased units (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 2. defendants' grounds for application (Para 23) |
| 3. court's discussion on affidavits (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 4. court's ruling on merits (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 5. application dismissed (Para 60) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] On 23 September 2024, the Court heard the application by the Defendants (encl 8) pursuant to O 2, r 1; O 3, r 5; O 19, r 9; and O 42, r 13 of the Rules of 2012 ('RC 2012'') to set aside the Judgment In Default of Defence ('JID') dated 1 April 2024 against the Defendants and under O 92, r 4 RC 2012 (encl 11) and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to stay the execution of the JID until encl 8 is disposed.
[2] On the same date, I dismissed the Defendants'' applications in encls 8 and 11.
[3] The Defendants are dissatisfied with my decision in relation to encl 8 and are pursuing their right of appeal.
[4] These are my full grounds for the decision in respect of encl 8.
The Cause Papers
[
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
