Noradura Hamzah JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(Enclosures 11 and 16)

Introduction

[1]Before this Court are two applications by the Defendant –

(a)Enclosure 11 : the Defendant’s application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Appearance (“JID”) entered on 12.8.2025 in favour of the Plaintiff; and

(b)Enclosure 16 : the Defendant’s ex-parte application to stay the execution of the JID pending the disposal of Enclosure 11.

[2]Both applications are fixed for decisions today. This Court shall now deliver the decisions.

Background

[3]The Plaintiff and Defendant were shareholders of Palm Resort Berhad (“the Company”). In 1997, they agreed to contribute SGD650,000.00 each as a shareholders’ advance to settle the Company’s outstanding interest on a syndicated loan.

[4]The Plaintiff paid the full SGD1,300,000.00, including the Defendant’s portion (“the Defendant’s Advance”). By a letter dated 31.12.1997 (“the letter”), the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant’s Advance would be due and payable upon demand. This arrangement was further recorded in a board resolution signed by the Defendant’s own director.

[5]The Defendant did not repay. On 1.7.2025, the Plaintiff demanded repayment. The action was filed on 11.7.2025. The Writ was served on 16.7.2025. The Defendant failed to enter appearance and the JID was sealed on 12.8.2025.

[6]The Plaintiff then obtained a Writ of Seizure and Sale (“WSS”) over the Defendant’s shares. On 23.10.2025, this Court granted a conditional stay requiring the Defendant to deposit RM400,000.00. The Defendant failed to comply and the auction proceeded on 24.10.2025.

ENCLOSURE 11 : SETTING ASIDE THE JID

[7]The Defendant contends that:

(a)the JID is irregular due to defects in the Writ and improper service; and

(b)it has meritorious defences on limitation and absence of agreement.

[8]On irregularity, this Court finds that any defect in the Writ is purely technical and caused no prejudice to the Defendant. The Defendant’s reliance on Maxland Sdn Bhd v. Timatch Sdn Bhd Order 13 rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court 1980, which applies to mixed claims and requires the plaintiff to serve a statement of claim and proceed as if appearance had been entered. The Federal Court set aside the judgment because the plaintiff failed to comply with that mandatory requirement. Here, the Plaintiff’s claim is for a liquidated demand only, and judgment was properly entered under Order 13 rule 1Rules of Court 2012

[9]As for service, the Writ was served at the Defendant’s registered address by personal delivery and registered post. On this point, the presumption of service under section 12Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967Act 388), read with Order 62 rule 4ROC 2012Clarion (Malaysia) Sendirian Bhd v Permintex Sanko Technologies Sdn Bhd IIC Hotels & Resorts Sdn Bhd v JP Heritage Sdn Bhd

[10]The Defendant’s denial of receipt is difficult to accept when it admits receiving the JID served to the same address by the same method. In the Court’s judgment, the Defendant cannot accept one and deny the other.

[11]The Defendant relies on Goh Teng Whoo & Anor v Ample Objectives Sdn Bhd Chung Wai Meng v Perbadanan Nasional Berhad Tetuan G Ravi (sebagai sebuah firma guaman) lwn Siow Chien Fu Tenaga Nasional Berhad lwn Lim Swee Kim dan satu lagi for the proposition that AR Registered Post is required and that the AR card must be exhibited. However, all these cases concern service on individuals under Order 10ROC 2012Order 62 rule 4ROC 2012Order 10 rule 1ROC 2012Order 62 rule 4ROC 2012by effecting personal service at the Defendant’s registered address, which was duly acknowledged.

[12]For completeness, the Defendant invokes the principle of ex debito justitiae, arguing that an irregular judgment must be set aside as of right, citing Tuan Ahmed Abdul Rahman v. Arab-Malaysian Finance Berhad Putri Shazana Megat Abdul Rahim v. Selina Chong Abdullah [2024] CLJU 1628. This principle, while established, presupposes that the judgment was irregularly obtained. For the reason