Deliberate non-compliance with court directions can justify striking out a defense and entering judgment for the claimant.

[1] This is the Defendant's appeal against my decision made on 7 April 2017 allowing the Plaintiff's application (Enclosure 59) under O 34 r 2(3) of the Rules of 2012 (RoC 2012) for the Defendant's defence to be struck out and judgment be entered in favour of the Plaintiff.

[2] Plaintiff filed legal action via WA-22NCC-113-03/2016 against the Defendant claiming a sum of RM1,422,014.96 which is due and outstanding from the Defendant to the Plaintiff (Writ Action). Plaintiff's cause of action against the Defendant is premised on various reinsurance contracts entered between the parties for various risks and coverage. Despite repeated demands the Defendant failed to pay the sum RM1,422,014.96. Thus the Writ Action filed by the Plaintiff to recover the full outstanding sum.

Factual Background

[3] Plaintiff, Allianz General Insurance Company, is a private company incorporated in Malaysia engaged in business as general insurer The Defendant, Best Re (L) Limited, is a company registered in the Labuan Offshore Financial Centre and engaged in the insurance business including accepting and undertaking reinsurance risks from general insurers under facultative and treaty reinsurance arrangements.

[4] For the purpose of this appeal, the Plaintiff's case as stated in their Statement of Claim dated 21 March 2016 and subsequently Amended Statement of Claim dated 9 November 2016 may be summarized as follows:-

(a) the Defendant has entered into various reinsurance arrangements with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's predecessor (Commerce Assurance Bhd) providing facultative reinsurance coverage to the Plaintiff in respect of various policies of insurance which the Plaintiff has issued to their insureds covering them for general insurance risks (the facultative reinsurance). The Defendant also provided treaty reinsurance coverage for specific classes of insurance as agreed between the parties (the treaty reinsurance). Further, the Plaintiff also entered into and obtained captive reinsurance coverage from the Defendant (the captive reinsurance).

(b) the parties relied on statement of accounts prepared on quarterly basis and dealt with each other based on the running accounts. Payment of claims and premiums were made by parties accordingly based on the statements.

(c) the Defendants incurred various liabilities under the reinsurance arrangement to pay to the Plaintiff claims which the Plaintiff had paid under such reinsurance arrangements (the paid claims).

(d) besides the paid claims, various claims have also been made under policies in respect of which the Defendant provided reinsurance coverage and for which the Plaintiff has provided the appropriate reserves to cover such claims (technical reserves).

(e) as at third quarter of the year 2015 a sum of RM1,422,014.96 was due and outstanding from the Defendant to the Plaintiff based on the statements which the Defendants accepted without any dispute or question.

(f) despite repeated requests and demands, the Defendant failed and/or neglected and has persisted in its failure or neglect to settle all the claims under the reinsurance arrangements.

[5] In the case of the Defendant although they admit providing the facultative reinsurance coverage, treaty reinsurance coverage and the captive reinsurance coverage they deny the claim made by the Plaintiff as they are unable to ascertain as to which particular or specific facultative reinsurance