The garnishee's absence at the hearing was not negligent, establishing that both solicitors share the responsibility to notify about court dates.

Hishamudin Yunus J:

Enclosure (61) is an appeal to the judge in chambers by the appellant/garnishee, a firm of solicitor known as Messrs Isharidah, Ho, Chong & Menon, against the decision of the learned senior assistant registrar made on 20 October 1997 in respect of encl. (27).

Enclosure (27) was an application before the senior assistant registrar to set aside a garnishment order made against the garnishee on 21 January 1997 in their absence.

The reason why the appellant/garnishee had applied to the senior assistant registrar to set aside his order was because they (ie, the appellant/garnishee) was not informed of the hearing date (ie, 21 January 1997) and was thus absent on the hearing day. In other words they were not given the opportunity to be heard.

On 20 October 1997 the senior assistant registrar heard the application to set aside (ie, encl. (27)) and dismissed it. Hence, this appeal.

I allowed the appeal because, in my judgement, there is merit in the application before the senior assistant registrar to set aside his order made on 21 January.

I am of the view that the appellant/garnishee have given a plausible explanation as to why they were absent on the day of the hearing. The learned senior assistant registrar should have accepted the explanation.

First, I shall proceed to touch on the background. When the matter regarding the show cause was supposed to come up for mention on 31 December 1996 before the learned senior assistant registrar, the appellant/garnishee had wrote on 26 December 1996 (exh. PM4 of encl. 28) and requested the former solicitor for the plaintiff, Messrs Awtar, Ghazali, Augustine & Co., who would be attending the court on that day, to mention on their (ie, the garnishee's) behalf, to get the hearing date and revert to them (ie, Messrs Isharidah). Messrs Awtar agreed. A counsel from Messrs Awtar was present before the registrar on the mention date and, accordingly, obtained the date of the hearing of the garnishee proceeding. The date given by the senior assistant registrar for the hearing was 21 January 1997. However, Messrs Awtar never reverted to the appellant/garnishee to inform them of the date of the hearing. Thus the appellant/garnishee was not aware of the hearing date.

Now, subsequent to 31 December 1996, the plaintiff decided to change their solicitor from Messrs Awtar to Messrs Kas & Co., ie, the present solicitor. Accordingly, on 18 November 1999, Messrs Kas & Co. filed a notice of change of solicitor, notifying that they were taking over the matter from Messrs Awtar as solicitor for the plaintiff. The notice of change of solicitor was served on Messrs Awtar on 10 January 1997 but was never served on the appellant/garnishee. However, the notice was faxed by Messrs Kas to the garnishee on 20 January 1997 (strictly, the service of the notice on the appellant/garnishee should not have been by way of fax but should have been in accordance with O. 62 r. 6 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("the RHC") I shall say more of this later). However, neither Messrs Awtar nor Messrs Kas informed Messrs Isharidah (the appellant/garnishee) of the date of the hearing (21 January 1997). As I have said, Messrs Isharidah was not aware of the date of the hearing and so they, as the garnishee, were not present before the senior assistant registrar on 21 January 1997 to show cause.

At the hearing on 21 January 1997, the plaintiff obtained the garnishment order against the appellant/garnishee. The latter came to know about the hearing only after they were served with the order (which the plaintiff had obtained on 21 January in the absence of the appellant/garnishee) on 22 January 1997 by the plaintiff's new solicitor, Messrs Kas.

On the same day, the appellant/garnishee phoned Messrs Awtar to inquire and was informed that they (ie, Messrs Awtar) were the solicitor for the plaintiff o