JUDGMENT

Mohd Rosli Yusoff J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the order of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) dismissing their application to set aside a judgment in default recorded against them on 7 July 2025.

[2] Upon hearing both parties' argument and upon perusing their respective written submissions, this Court dismissed the appellants' appeal and affirmed the decision of the learned SCJ. Hence, the appellants further appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Background

[3] The respondent commenced this action against the appellants to recover the payment for goods sold and delivered. The respondent's writ and statement of claims were served to the appellants at their respective address as follows:

(i) To the 1st Appellant, at the address as stated in the application form for credit facilities dated 9 October 2018 i.e at Tingkat 2, P.T. 178, Jalan Hamzah, 15050, Kota Bharu, Kelantan;

(ii) To the 2nd Appellant, at the address as stated in the Continuing Guarantee and Indemnity dated 2 October 2018 i.e at PT 763, Taman Hijrah, Padang Rokma, 16250 Wakaf Bharu, Kelantan; and

(iii) To the 3rd Appellant, at the address as stated in the Continuing Guarantee and Indemnity dated 2 October 2018 i.e at No 20, Taman Binjai Manis, 16450 Ketereh, Kelantan.

[4] The appellants failed to enter appearance and a judgment in default was entered against them accordingly.

The Appellants' submission

[5] The appellants submitted that their appeal to set aside the judgment in default was based on 2 grounds namely the service of the writ and statement of claims upon them were defective for the reason "unable to complete delivery", thus, the judgment in default recorded against them should be set aside as of right.

[6] Secondly, it was submitted that the appellants had a good defence to the claims where the respondent failed to act upon the security of bank guarantee before taking legal action against the appellants and that the appellants disputed the final amount claimed by the respondent.

Analysis And Finding Of The High Court

Service Of The Writ And Statement Of Claims

[7] On the issue whether the service of the writ and statement of claim on the appellants was a good and proper service, this Court found that the writ and statement of claims were served on the 1st Appellant as the principle debtor pursuant to the terms of the credit facilities application form executed by the 1st Appellant dated 9 October 2018 and on the 2nd and 3rd Appellants respectively as the guarantors pursuant to the terms of the Continuing Guarantee and Indemnity dated 2 October 2018 executed by the 2nd and the 3rd Appellants.

[8] Paragraph (i) of the credit facilities application forms provides as follows:

"Agree that the service process of all legal and non legal documents and notices in respect of any action arising out of or connected with supply of goods/services by you may be effected by prepaid registered post to the last known address as shown herein and shall be deemed to have been served upon expiry of 5 days from the date of posting notwithstanding any proof to the contrary."

[9] Paragraph 18 of the Continuing Guarantee and Indemnity provides as follows:

".... The Guarantor further agrees that service process of all Court documents, notices whatsoever related to the Guarantee or connected to the Guarantee shall be effected by prepaid registered post to the last address known as shown in First Schedule and shall be deemed to have been served upon expiry of 5 days from the date of posting notwithstanding any proof to the contrary."

[10] It was not disputed that the respondent had served the writ and statement of claims to the appellants by prepaid registered post to the address as stipulated in the contract respectively. The service on the 1st Appellant was made through registered parcel No RY636527197MY whereas the registered parcel for the 2nd and 3rd Appellants was RY636527206MY and RY636527020MY respectively. However, the delivery of all the parcels was