Service of writ must comply with agreed modes; failure to demonstrate a defense on the merits results in denial of setting aside default judgment.

[1] The Rules of Court 2012 deal with a variety of matters that relate to the civil litigation process. Amongst others, they prescribe the procedures to be followed by the parties. The demand for compliance with the provisions in the gives rise to two interrelated problems. Not every provision is couched in clear and unambiguous terms. Hence the need to interpret and give effect to the intention as envisioned by the Rules Committee. While there are instances whereby provisions exist to guide the Courts in dealing with this aspect of practice and procedure, often the matter is far more complex. Hence, in the event of clear breaches of the provisions of the , the Courts will be required to make a determination as to the consequences and to impose the proper sanctions for such non-compliances.

[2] The present matter before this Court concerned an application to set aside a judgment in default of appearance. While the principles governing the setting aside of a default judgment is considered as settled law, the instant application raised a novel point of practice and procedure. That point relates to the proper procedure for entry of a default judgment pursuant to O 13 r 7 of the Rules of Court 2012.

[3] The application to set aside the judgment in default was in turn met with an objection that the said application was made out of time. This ground of objection required this Court to reflect on the justice of technicalities in the context of this area of practice and procedure.

The Parties And Background Facts

[4] The plaintiff, Wire & Wireless Sdn Bhd, is a company incorporated in Malaysia. The plaintiff company is involved, amongst others, in the import and export business involving telecommunications and information technology applications.

[5] The three defendants are individuals who are also the directors and shareholders in a company called Eminent Display Sdn Bhd ("EDSB"). EDSB is in the Internet Wi-Fi services business.

[6] The plaintiff and EDSB were embroiled in a series of litigation proceedings that was originally instituted by the former against the latter for breach of contract. The parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement on 28 February 2020 whereby EDSB agreed to pay the plaintiff a sum of money. The three defendants had stood as guarantors for the said sum of money. When EDSB failed to pay the sum owed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff commenced an action against the three defendants on 19 August 2022 seeking, inter alia, the sum owed to them by EDSB and interests.

Entry Of Judgment In Default

[7] Service of the Writ and Statement of Claim were effected on the three defendants by hand and by prepaid mail post on 28 August 2022 and 1 September 2022 respectively. The mode for service had been prescribed in the Directors' Letter of Guarantee ("Guarantee") dated 28 February 2020.

[8] The affidavits verifying service had been affirmed by the process servers on 20 September 2022.

[9] The defendants failed to enter an appearance under O 12 of the Rules of Court 2012. This is evident from the three Certificates of Non-Appearance issued by the Court against each of the three defendants on 20 September 2022.

[10] The plaintiff thereby entered judgment in default of appearance against the three defendants on 20 September 2022.

[11] The plaintiff duly served the said judgment