Table of Content
1. the court outlines the legal implications in garnishee proceedings regarding debt attachment and burden of proof. (Para 1 , 2 , 5)
2. the appeal details the assertions of the garnishee regarding the obligation to prove non-existence of debt. (Para 3 , 12 , 13)
3. discussion on the discretionary powers of the court in evaluating garnishee claims and evidence. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 , 11)
4. final ruling on the garnishee's liability and procedural compliance requirements. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15)

[1] The appellant/Garnishee appeal is against the decision of the learned trial judge who had after full trial in a garnishee proceeding held that the Garnishee is liable to pay the respondent/Garnishor the sum of RM3,179,014.47 etc; and ordered the garnishment order nisi to be made absolute.

[2] It is not in dispute that the learned trial judge had taken the position that the burden of proof to prove that there is no debt due or accruing to the judgment debtor (JD) lies with the Garnishee, notwithstanding the Garnishor did not provide any particulars on his belief. Such an approach may not be correct in law. (See Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Berhad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document