MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD vs TETUAN SAIBULLAH MV NATHAN & CO & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 1900

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN SAIBULLAH MV NATHAN & CO & ANOR – Respondent

Table of Content
1. judgment appeal process overview. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts on garnishee proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis on existing debt. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. arguments regarding the nature of debt and agreements. (Para 14 , 15)
5. interpretation of consent and settlement terms. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. determining debt existence for garnishment. (Para 19 , 20)

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 19 November 2012 in dismissing an appeal against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar dated 1 August 2012 in not allowing an application for a Garnishee Order Absolute by the Appellant and setting aside a Garnishee Order to show cause.

[2] On 18 June 2013 we heard the appeal and after due consideration by us, we allowed the appeal for reasons set out below.

Background Facts

[3] Summary Judgment was entered against the 2nd Respondent (who is the 1st Defendant in the High Court) for the sum of RM69,443,874.35 on 9 April 2010. The judgment debt related to a banking facility granted to the 2nd Respondent.

[4] The 2nd Respondent, 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the High Court had taken out a counterclaim against the Appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 1900

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAMAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD – AppellantVersusTETUAN SAIBULLAH MV NATHAN & CO & ANOR – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN SAIBULLAH MV NATHAN & CO & ANOR – Respondent