JUDGMENT

Suria Kumar Dj Paul J:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 14 is the Appellant's application to extend time for service of the Record of Appeal and the Supplementary Record of Appeal.

[2] The Appellant is the plaintiff in the court below. Whereas the respondents are the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants.

[3] Parties will be referred to as the appellant and the respondents hereinafter.

[4] The 2nd, 5th and 6th Defendants are not involved in this appeal, but they will be referred to in their capacity sued as defendants.

Background Facts

[5] Learned Counsel for the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents concedes that the filing of the Record of Appeal is within time.

[6] He also graciously does not take any objections to the filing and service of the Supplementary Appeal Record. Needless to say, this is most likely due to the Supplementary Appeal Record, which contains the Respondents' documents in respect of their indemnity claim against the 2nd Defendant pursuant to O 16 r 8 ROC 2012, that was omitted in the Record of Appeal.

[7] Learned Counsel for the Respondents also informed the court that they are raising a preliminary objection concerning the service of the notice of appeal. He does not dispute that the notice of appeal was filed within time, and the service by email on 13 November 2024 is also within time.

[8] But what he contends is that the service via email is not a valid service and the copy of the notice of appeal was only served approximately ten (10) months later on 17 September 2025, after the email.

Analysis And Finding

[9] I shall deal with encl 14 first, as this is a proper application made by the appellant and fixed before this court. Only thereafter, I will deal with the Respondents' preliminary objection.

[10] This court finds that the appellant is only out of time for about six (6) days in respect of the service of the Record of Appeal.

[11] Learned Counsel for the appellant concedes that they do not have any good reason why they were out of time for the six (6) days.

[12] Before this court decides whether to exercise its discretion to extend time, in my opinion it is necessary to consider whether there are any merits in the appellant's appeal.

[13] Briefly, the background facts to the plaintiff's claim are as follows.

[14] The Appellant is a company offering a Peer-to-Peer Financing facility platform for businesses to borrow and investors to advance investment sums. Regarding this, Investment Notes are issued by the Borrowers to the investors.

[15] At the request of the 1st Respondent company to borrow the sum of RM900,000.00 for their business, the plaintiff prepared five (5) Investment Notes issued by the 1st Respondent to the investors. The five (5) Investment Notes are No WC2100000405, No. WC2100000440, No. WC2200000476, No WC2200000479 and No WC2200000482. Each of these Investment Notes contained a repayment schedule.

[16] Thereupon, the Appellant, via their Trust Account under Malaysian Trustee Berhad, issued to the 1st Respondent the finance facility sum upon deducting the platform fees, sinking fund, stamp duty and one month instalment in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions.

[17] Under the terms of the Agreement, the 1st Respondent agreed to repay to the appellant the financing sum in twelve (12) instalments with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

[18] Pursuant to a Deed of Assignment executed between the appellant and the 2nd Defendant, the repayments which were to be made by the 1st Respondent to the appellant were assigned to the 2nd Defendant in consideration of the appellant agreeing to grant or continuing to grant the financing facility to the 1st Respondent.

[19] The 1st Respondent defaulted in the instalment payments, leaving a sum of RM406,674.00 that includes interest, default fee and penalty fee due and owing.

[20] The 2nd Defendant executed a Corporate Guarantee to repay the sums due to the appellant from the 1st Respondent.

[21] Whereas the 2nd Defendant and 3rd Respondent executed a Deed of Guarantee to repa