Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
WITECH SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
BHR GROUP LTD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology of default judgments (Para 2) |
| 2. non-compliance with procedural rules (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. types of default judgments (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. irregular default judgments set aside (Para 18 , 20 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. plaintiff's claim against defendants (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. compliance with rules is crucial (Para 50) |
[1] I have read the judgment of my learned brother Nihrumala Segara MK Pillay, JCA and I totally agree with his Lordship that the appellants' appeal should be allowed with costs fixed at RM500 and that the deposit to be refunded to the appellants. In support of his Lordship's judgment, I have this to say.
[2] The chronology of events that led to the four (4) default judgments must be viewed in its correct perspective. They should be considered as important facts that cannot be swept under the carpet. I will now itemise them:
[2.1] The 1st, 7th and 8th defendants and that would be the 1st, 3rd and 4th appellants filed their memorandum of appearance on 23 June 2001.
[2.2] The 6th and 20th defendants and that would be the 2nd and 7th appellants filed their memorandum of appearance
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
