HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
RENOFAC BUILDER (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CHASE PERDANA BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for summary judgment under o 14. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on conditional versus unconditional leave. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. importance of evidential backing and procedural accuracy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. defective pleadings render claims untenable. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final ruling supporting defendant's unconditional leave. (Para 11 , 12) |
Introduction
By way of encl. 27, the plaintiff applied for leave to enter summary judgment against the defendant pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of the High 1980 ("RHC") for the sum of RM1,125,385 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 7 November 1997 until the date of full settlement and costs of the application in encl. 27 and the present suit to be assessed. On 4 April 2000, the learned senior assistant registrar ("SAR") refused to accede to the plaintiff's application in encl. 27 and instead she ordered the defendant to be given conditional leave to defend by depositing a sum of RM1,125,385 into Court within one month from 4 April 2000, failing which, a summary judgment will be entered against the defendant.
The plaintiff was unhappy with the decision of the SAR and naturally it filed a not
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.