A regular judgment will not be set aside unless a defendant shows a meritorious defense and reasonable justification for delay in the application.

Preliminary

[1] The following are the Grounds of Judgment regarding the 1st defendant's Notice of Application [Encl 10] and the 2nd defendant's Notice of Application [Encl 28].

[2] Due to their similar nature, Encl 10 and Encl 28 will both be considered together.

[3] Encls 10 and 28 are the defendants' applications for leave to file the said applications out of time as well as their applications to set aside the Judgment in Default dated 12 December 2018 ("JID").

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[4] The plaintiff filed this civil suit against the defendants as guarantors for Newrise Channel Sdn Bhd ("company") under a Continuing Guarantee and Indemnity dated 7 July 2014 ("Continuing Guarantee and Indemnity").

[5] As part of the Continuing Guarantee and Indemnity, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff on demand all sums of money and liabilities due and pending by the company to the plaintiff for the goods or services rendered by the plaintiff to the company by way of cash, credit, instalment, rental and/or lease in accordance with the agreement the plaintiff and the company had signed.

[6] Although they were served with the Writ and Statement of Claim, the defendants failed to appear in court to answer the plaintiff's claim.

[7] As a result, the JID was entered against them.

[8] In accordance with the JID, the defendants must pay the plaintiff jointly and severally the following:

(a) The sum of RM1,271,694.48;

(b) Interest on the sum of RM881,851.31 calculated at the daily rate of 0.04% from 21 September 2018 until the date of full settlement; and

(c) Costs of RM2,124.00.

court's Analysis And Findings

[9] As a starting point, I acknowledge the trite legal principle that when considering an application to set aside a JID, it is necessary to determine whether the JID is regular or irregular. In cases where the JID is an irregular judgment, it should be set aside exdebito justitiae. As a result, no further questions will be asked.

[10] Aside from that, if the JID is found to be regular, then an applicant seeking to set aside the JID must demonstrate two important issues. The first concern should be whether the delay had been reasonably explained, and the second should be whether there was a defence on the merits.

[11] In order to provide guidance on this issue, I draw upon the court of Appeal's decision in Ramasundramoorthy Permalu v. Gregory Yusran & Associates 2020 MarsdenLR 987 ; [2020] 5 MLJ 502; . In this case, Her Ladyship Mary Lim JCA [as Her Ladyship then was] observed as follows when delivering the majority decision of the court of Appeal at p 509:

[7] Pursuant to O 13 r 8 of the Rules of court 2012, the court may, on such terms as it thinks just, set aside or vary any judgment entered pursuant to this order. Where the default judgment was entered regularly, case law has been clear that the default judgment may only be set aside upon satisfying the court that there is a good meritorious defence. See for instance the decisions of the Federal court in Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v. Majlis Amanah Ra'ayat 1978 MarsdenLR 162; 1978 MarsdenLR 242 ; Supreme court in Hasil Bumi Perumahan Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Bhd [1993] 1 MLRA 642; [1994] 1 MLJ 312 ; 1994 MarsdenLR 1358 ; [