2012 MarsdenLR 1759
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
SIVAMURTHY MUNIANDY & ORS – Appellant
Versus
LEMBAGA KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(IM)-633-10-2011]
The court ruled that the broad interpretation of the non obstante clause in the EPF Act allows recovery of unremitted contributions despite the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a purposive approach to statutory interpretation.
Headnote:(A) Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 - Sections 46(1) and 65(1) - Limitation Act - Interpretation of non obstante clause - The appeal concerns the applicability of the Limitation Act to recover unremitted contributions despite the limits set forth, focusing on the broad or narrow construction of the non obstante clause. (Paras 5, 11, 17)
(B) Irregular Judgment - The court reaffirmed that judgments not regularly obtained can be set aside ex debitio justitiae - A regular judgment exists where proper service is conducted according to procedural rules, noting that the appellant's addresses were valid and known. (Paras 7-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, former directors of a wound-up company, appealed against a default judgment for outstanding EPF contributions for a specific period. The default judgment was contested on grounds of irregularity due to alleged improper service.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the service of the writ was regular, and the limitations of the Limitation Act did not apply due to the broad interpretation of the non obstante clauses in the EPF Act, thereby affirming the claim against the directors.
Issues: Determining the applicability of the Limitation Act in light of the non obstante clause in the EPF Act and evaluating the validity of the default judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the non obstante clause permits claims beyond the Limitation Act's period, promoting the EPF Act's purpose of social welfare for its members, and emphasized that statutory interpretations should advance legislative objectives.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of application against judgment in default (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
[1] The appellants herein are the 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants in the court below and the appeal pertains to the dismissal of the appellant's application to set aside the judgment in default obtained against them on 1 July 2009.
[2] The suit was instituted against the appellants in their capacity as the former directors of the company known as Euro-Asian F&B Services (M) Sdn Bhd (the company) which has since been wound up.
[3] The subject matter of the claim is for outstanding EPF contribution/ payment between December 1992 and August 1993 together with dividend and interest and upon a certificate of non appearance being recorded judgment in default was entered against the appellants on 1 July 2009.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document