Ramly Ali J:

1. This is an appeal by the judgment creditor (‘JC’) against the decision of the senior assistant registrar (‘SAR’) given on 5 September 2003 where the SAR, on an application of the judgment debtor (‘JD’), set aside the bankruptcy notice dated 11 October 2001 and the creditor's petition dated 6 September 2002 both of which were taken out by the judgment creditor.

Background facts

2. The JC had succeeded in obtaining judgment for a sum of Singapore $43,688.30 against the JD in the High Court of Singapore on 2 February 1998. In summary the terms of the judgment were as follows:

(i)That the JD pays the JC the sum of Singapore $43,688.30 and costs to be taxed on the standard basis from the date the writ of summons to 2 May 1996 and thereafter on an indemnity/ solicitor and client basis from 3 May 1996 to the date of judgment;

(ii)That the JD was to pay interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the writ of summons was served on the JD;

(iii)That the JC's claim against the second defendant in the suit was to be dismissed with costs to be taxed; and

(iv)That the JC will recover the costs it had to pay to the second defendant from the JD.

3. The JC then took steps to register the said judgment in the High Court of Malaya pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 19581998 registered the said judgment as a judgment of the High Court of Malaya. Pursuant to O 67 r 7 of the High Court Rules 1980, notice of the registration was served on the JD.

4. Subsequently to the registration of the judgment, the assistant registrar of the High Court of Singapore had proceeded to tax the costs pursuant to the terms of the judgment. By way of registrar's certificate dated 1 June 1999[2005] 5 MLJ 22 at 26 the assistant registrar had awarded the JC the sum of Singapore $240,640 as costs against the JD. By another registrar's certificate dated 8 June 1998 the assistant registrar had ordered costs of Singapore $111,947.56 to be paid by the JC to the second Defendant. Under the terms of the judgment the JC is entitled to recover this amount from the JD.

5. At the time of application for registration of the judgment both the aforesaid costs were yet to be taxed and finalised. In the order dated 8 July 1998 (by the High Court of Malaya) only the judgment sum of Sinapore $43,688.30 and accumulated interest at the rate of 6% per annum calculated from 6 July 1994 to 2 June 1998 in the amount of Singapore $10,248.21 were quantified, converted to Malaysian currency and mentioned (ie totaling a sum of RM137,753.84).

6. The JC then took out a bankruptcy notice dated 11 October 2001 against the JD. The bankruptcy notice was based on the judgment dated 2 February 1998, the registrar's certificate (allocatur) dated 8 June 1998 and the registrar's certificate (allocatur) dated 1 June 1999. In view of the JD's failure to comply with the said bankruptcy notice the JC then filed a creditor's petition dated 6 September 2002 against the JD. Both the bankruptcy notice and the creditor's petition were duly served on the JD.

7. The JD then filed a summons in chambers (encl 13) to set aside the bankruptcy notice and a separate summons in chambers (encl 16) to set aside the creditor's petition. Both applications to set aside were heard by the SAR on 28 August 2003 who adjourned the matter to 5 September 2003. On 5 September 2003 the SAR allowed both the JD's application and set aside the bankruptcy notice and the creditor's petition. By way of a notice of appeal to judge in chambers dated 11 September 2003 (encl 27) the JC now appeals against the whole of the SAR's decision to set aside both the bankruptcy notice and the creditor's petition.

Grounds Raised by the JD

8. Essentially the JD challenges the bankruptcy notice as being defective and hence the creditor's petition, which emanates from the bankruptcy notice, is bad in law. From the cause papers and affidavits filed by the JD, the grounds on which the JD had relied on in setting asid