TAN BON KIAT 1. ) Badan Pengurusan Pelita Indah 2. ) Bandari Simma Realty Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Kang Hock Hin 4. ) Jothi A/P Muniandy 5. ) Indra Devi A/P Lechanam

TAN BON KIAT 1. ) Badan Pengurusan Pelita Indah 2. ) Bandari Simma Realty Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Kang Hock Hin 4. ) Jothi A/P Muniandy 5. ) Indra Devi A/P Lechanam

Given the company claimant in the counter-claim was effectively unrepresented because its solicitor had sought to withdraw at the eleventh hour and was absent on trial day, and considering the history of repeated adjournments and apparent tactical delay, the court properly exercised its discretion under Order 35 RoC to refuse further adjournment, dismiss the counter-claim and award costs to the plaintiff.

Citation
JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff (original): Tan Bon Kiat; Defendant (original): Badan Pengurusan Pelita Indah; Defendant (original); Counter Claimant: Bandari Simma Realty Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (original): Kang Hock Hin; Defendant (original): Jothi a/p Muniandy; Defendant (original): Indra Devi a/p Lechanam
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 December 2023
Case Number
JA-A52NCvC-93-05/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (counter Claim) / Trial of Counter Claim (dismissed); Appeal Filed to High Court
Outcome
Counter-claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Representation of Body Corporate, Dismissal for Non Appearance, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Corporate Litigation Adjournment Representation of Body Corporate Dismissal for Non Appearance Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Bon Kiat

Plaintiff (original)

Badan Pengurusan Pelita Indah

Defendant (original)

Bandari Simma Realty Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (original); Counter Claimant

Kang Hock Hin

Defendant (original)

Jothi a/p Muniandy

Defendant (original)

Indra Devi a/p Lechanam

Defendant (original)

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (counter Claim) / Trial of Counter Claim (dismissed); Appeal Filed to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjournment should be granted at trial
  2. 2 Whether a body corporate must be represented by a solicitor at trial
  3. 3 Whether late discharge/withdrawal of solicitors justifies adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

Given the company claimant in the counter-claim was effectively unrepresented because its solicitor had sought to withdraw at the eleventh hour and was absent on trial day, and considering the history of repeated adjournments and apparent tactical delay, the court properly exercised its discretion under Order 35 RoC to refuse further adjournment, dismiss the counter-claim and award costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Counter-claim dismissed

Orders

  • Counter-claim dismissed
  • Costs of RM10,000.00 awarded to plaintiff Tan Bon Kiat