Haidar Mohd Noor JCA:

This is an appeal against the decision of the learned judge affirming the decision of the senior assistant registrar ("SAR") who dismissed the appellant's summons to set aside the registration of a Singapore High Court judgment obtained by the respondent.

Background Facts

On or about 4 August 1993, the respondent granted a loan in the sum of SD1.9 million to Winds Cruises Pte Ltd ("Winds Cruises"). The loan was guaranteed by, inter alia,the appellant pursuant to a guarantee dated 4 August 1993.

Wind Cruises defaulted in the said loan.

The respondent commenced proceedings in the High Court of Singapore videwrit no. 967 on 16 June 1994 against, inter alia,the appellant (cited as the 6th (sixth) defendant) pursuant to the guarantee dated 4 August 1993 executed by him as a director of Winds Cruises. ("Singapore proceedings"). The appellant did not deny the execution of the guarantee.

The respondent purportedly served the sealed writ on the appellant by letter dated 4 July 1994 sent by AR registered post through its solicitors in Singapore at the appellant's address in Kuala Lumpur.

Appearance was purportedly entered on the appellant's behalf by a firm of solicitors in Singapore on 9 July 1994 under the authority to act, signed by one Wee Toon Boon, the seventh defendant, on his behalf.

The respondent thereafter filed an application under O. 14 in the Singapore proceedings for final judgment against, inter alia,the appellant.

On 19 September 1994, summary judgment was entered against the appellant for the sum of SD1,968,335.36 as at 31 May 1994 and interest on the said sum at the default rate of 18% per annum and accumulated by way of compound interest with monthly rests from 1 June 1994 until payment ("Singapore judgment").

On 29 November 1994, the Singapore judgment was registered in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur. The order dated 29 November 1994 and the notice to judgment debtor of the registration of the foreign judgment dated 11 January 1995 were served personallyon the appellant on 12 January 1995 videletter dated 11 January 1995 from Messrs Shook Lin & Bok, Advocates & Solicitors here. The service was effected by one Mahamud bin Mansor, a clerk of Messrs Shook Lin & Bok.

At the time of the application to set aside the order of the registration of the Singapore judgment, no attempt was made by the appellant to set aside the Singapore judgment.

Be that as it may, we now proceed to consider the application of the appellant that was dismissed in the court below and which is the subject matter of the appeal before us.

The Application

In his application, the appellant prayed for, inter alia,:

(i) extension of time to file the application to set aside the Singapore judgment;

(ii) that the registration of the Singapore judgment be set aside pursuant to s. 5 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ("the Act")and O. 67 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC").

Extension Of Time To File The Application

It would appear that the application of the appellant was dismissed by the SAR solely on the ground of delay in filing the application for extension. The learned judge held that the SAR had rightfully exercised her discretion not to grant an extension of time. According to the learned judge, the length of delay and the reasons for the delay was purely the doing of the appellant.

The issue before us is whether the court below had correctly exercised the discretion not to grant an extension of time.

We shall deal first with the learned judge's construction of O. 67 r. 5(3) of RHCwhich reads:

The Court may, on an application made at any time while it remains competent for any party to apply to have the registration set aside, extend the period (either as originally fixed or as subsequently extended) within which an application to have the registration set aside may be made.

According to the notice of the registration of the foreign judgment issued by the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, th