GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The judgment creditor obtained against the judgment debtor a judgment dated 3rd April, 1996 in the sum of RM90,798.29, interest and costs in the Sessions Court. Thereupon the judgment creditor took out a Bankruptcy Notice and served it on the judgment debtor. This is an application by the judgment debtor to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice.

2. Miss Aryati Zainuddin, counsel for the judgment debtor, submitted that the judgment of 3rd April was a void judgment and as such it could not form a basis of the Bankruptcy Notice. She contended that the judgment was a default judgment, a judgment which was not obtained after a trial where the merits of the case were argued. However, the appeal against the judgment was dismissed on technicalities and again, it was not heard on its merits. Therefore it was an interlocutory judgment, and not being a final judgment, it could not support the Bankruptcy Notice under section 32(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967. [2]

3. Miss Lina Wee, counsel for the judgment creditor submitted that a default judgment was not a void judgment. The judgment debtor had appealed against the judgment to the High Court which dismissed the appeal. There had been no further appeal. Thus it was a final judgment as the judgment debtor has exhausted all remedies.

4. A Bankruptcy Notice is a notice issued by the court and served on the creditor who has obtained a final judgment against the debtor, requiring the debtor, with seven days of the notice, either to pay the judgment debt, or to satisfy the court he has a counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand, equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt or sum ordered to be paid and which the debtor could not set up in an action in which the judgment was obtained. See LEE CHUAN HONG SDN BHD v LAW PUONG UNG (1981) 1 MLJ 199 [FC].

5. I agree with the submission of Miss Lina Wee that the judgment which form the basis of the Bankruptcy Notice is a final judgment.

6. With respect, the submission of the learned counsel for the judgment debtor that the default judgment was void, is not correct. There is no judgment which is void ipso facto. It can be either regular or irregular. If an act is void, there is no need for an order of the court to set it aside, it is automatically void without more ado: per Lord Denning in MACFOY v UNITED AFRICA COMPANY LTD. (1961) 3 All ER 1169. In ISAACS v ROBERTSON (1984) 3 All ER (PC), Lord Diplock said that orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in a courts of contentious litigation are either regular or irregular. It is misleading to seek to draw distinctions between orders that are "void", in the sense that they can be ignored with impunity by those persons to whom they are addressed, and orders which are "voidable", in the sense that they may be enforced until set aside and there are no orders which are void ipso facto without the need for proceedings to set them aside. Dictum of Romer LJ in HADKINSON v HADKINSON (1952) 2 All ER 569 approved; MARSH v MARSH (1945) AC 271 and MACFOY v UNITED AFRICA CO. LTD. (supra). [3]

7. The principle is that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is either regular or irregular; and a judgment is a good judgment until or unless it is set aside (PEMBINAAN KSY SDN BHD vs LIAN SENG PROPERTIES SDN BHD (1991) 1 MLJ 100 [SC]). In the instant case, the judgment debtor had applied to the High Court to set aside the default judgment but failed. It matters not if the application was dismissed on a technicality or the merits of the case. Thus the judgment of 3rd April is an enforceable judgment. The judgment creditor is perfectly correct to rely on the judgment, which forms the basis of the Bankruptcy Notice.

8. It is not correct to say that the judgment is an interlocutory judgment, as can be seen that the judgment had been upheld by the High Court. The dismissal of the judgment debtor's application to have it set aside, has the effect of that the judgment had been affirmed by