FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SERAC ASIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SEPAKAT INSURANCE BROKERS SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case history and procedural developments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and locus standi. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. procedural arguments regarding inherent jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. respondent's contention regarding loci standi. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. court of appeal's findings on locus standi. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. legal interpretations on functus officio. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. inherent jurisdiction limitations. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. fraud standards and implications on judgments. (Para 35) |
[1] This case has an unusual history, as narrated by both counsel in their respective written submissions. Serac Asia, the plaintiff in the High Court (now appellant) issued a writ a summons against the defendant, Sepakat (now respondent), claiming for damages arising from the alleged negligence of the respondent under an insurance arrangement. The respondent failed to enter an appearance to that writ resulting in the appellant obtaining a judgment in default on the suit.
[2] The respondent then filed an application to set aside the default judgment on 28 April 2006 (encl 6 in the High Court). This was dismiss
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.