The court upheld the judgment in default as valid, confirming that the plaintiff served the writ in compliance with procedural rules, and the defendant failed to demonstrate a viable defense.

Aliza Sulaiman J:

[1] Judgment in default ("JID") was entered against the Defendant on 17 June 2020. This Court heard the application by the Defendant to set aside the JID (encl 8) pursuant to O 13, r 8; O 42, r 13 and/ or O 92, r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ("RoC 2012") on 11 September 2020. The application was dismissed on the same date with costs of RM3,500.00, subject to allocator.

[2] Aggrieved by the decision of the Court, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 October 2020 (encl 21).

[3] These are my full reasons for the decision.

Brief Facts

[4] In the Statement of Claim ('soC") filed on 28 May 2020 (encl 2), the Plaintiff pleaded that EK Build Sdn Bhd is the main contractor for the project known as "Relocation of Existing Sewer Line for Proposed Mixed Development for Sky Awani 3 - Fasa I at Sebahagian Lot 29787 (Lot Asal PT 28372) Jalan Usahawan 6, Air Panas, Mukim Setapak, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur " ('said Project") for Skysanctuary Development Sdn Bhd.

[5] The main contractor appointed the Defendant as sub-contractor for the said Project and subsequently, the Defendant engaged the Plaintiff under two specialist sub-contracts as follows:

(a) letter of acceptance dated 8 November 2017 for the supply and installation of pipes with manshield jacking method for the contract sum of RM265,000.00 ("Manshield Agreement"); and

(b) letter of acceptance dated 14 December 2017 for the supply and installation of pipes with slurry jacking method for the contract sum of RM2,157,000.00 ('slurry Agreement").

[6] The Plaintiff claimed that it had completed the works under the Manshield Agreement and Slurry Agreement, including the additional works as instructed by the Defendant from time to time under each Agreement, on or about 30 May 2018 and 22 May 2018, respectively.

[7] By letters dated 16 October 2018 and 9 October 2018, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant for issuance of the Certificate of Practical Completion following the completion of works by the Plaintiff under the Manshield Agreement and Slurry Agreement, respectively. The Defendant purportedly failed, refused and/ or neglected to do so.

[8] The Plaintiff instituted civil action against the Defendant to claim the sum of RM1,295,334.93 (together with interest and costs) as the amount due and owing under the Manshield Agreement and Slurry Agreement for-

(a) works done as submitted in the Progress Claims in the total sum of RM3,344,210.62 (inclusive of 6% goods and service tax) less the sum of RM2,113,058.69 for payment received; and

(b) 50% of the retention sum amounting to RM64,183.00 which ought to be released to the Plaintiff following practical completion of the works under both Agreements.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff claimed damages to be assessed by the Court.

[9] According to the Affidavit of Service affirmed by the Plaintiff's solicitor on 16 June 2020 (encl 4), he had, on 2 June 2020 at approximately 10.05 am. served the sealed copy of the Writ (encl 1) and SoC at the Defendant's business address ie No 60-2, Jalan 8/62A, Bandar Menjalara, Kuala Lumpur and at around 10.44 am. on the same day, served the same cause papers on the Defendant's registered address at 4-3-1 Block 4, Kompleks Kantonmen Prima, Jalan Ipoh, Batu 4½, Kuala Lumpur (exhibit "YJW-3" shows, among others, these addresses as per the Defendant's Corporate Information based on the SSM search results by the Plaintiff).

[10] In para 4 of encl 4, it was averred that a woman by the name of Hanisah had admitted that the address is indeed the Defendant's business address and that she has the authority to receive the cause papers on behalf of the Defendant.

[11] In para 6 of encl 4, the Plaintiff's solicitor affirmed that a Chinese lady who was at the premises but refused to give her name, had admitted that the address is indeed the Defendant's registered address and that she has the authority to receive the cause papers on behalf of the Defendant.

[12] A copy of the Writ and covering letter prepared b