AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD vs PANFLEX SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 4814 ; 2011 MarsdenLR 1

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 MarsdenLR 4814 ; 2011 MarsdenLR 1

RICHARD MALANJUM, ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN, RAUS SHARIF
AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PANFLEX SDN BHD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. question regarding declaratory judgment requirements. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court granted leave and set aside default judgment. (Para 3)
3. background on the case and parties involved. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. arguments presented regarding the default judgment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court observations on the necessity of evidence for declaratory relief. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. conclusions on the invalidity of the default judgment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. final decisions and absence of costs order. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak):

(1) Leave to appeal was given by this court on 4 November 2010 on one question, namely:

Whether an application for a declaratory judgment in default of defence pursuant to Order 19 r. 7(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 must be supported by evidence of the factual matrix to enable a judge to exercise his discretion in granting or refusing the declaratory relief prayed for?

(2) We heard the appeal on 19 April 2011. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties we answered the question in the positive and allowed the appeal. Accordingly we set aside the default judgment obtained in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 4814 ; 2011 MarsdenLR 1

RICHARD MALANJUM, ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN, RAUS SHARIFAMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD – AppellantVersusPANFLEX SDN BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

RICHARD MALANJUM, ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN, RAUS SHARIF
AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PANFLEX SDN BHD – Respondent