ANG SIANG PING UNITY STATIONERY SDN. BHD.

ANG SIANG PING UNITY STATIONERY SDN. BHD.

Where a plaintiff filed a corrective affidavit on the court-ordered deadline disclosing the full document for the first time, it was unjust and unfair to exclude the defendant's affidavit in reply filed within the 14-day reply period and shortly before the hearing; Order 92 Rule 4 empowers the Court to prevent such injustice and to curb abuse of process, therefore the exclusion order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Citation
PA-12ANCvC-73-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (defendant in Sessions Court): Ang Siang Ping; Respondent (plaintiff in Sessions Court): Unity Stationery Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 September 2022
Case Number
PA-12ANCvC-73-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Exclusion of Affidavit in Reply (application to Set Aside Judgment in Default) / High Court Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order excluding the appellant's affidavit in reply set aside; appeal allowed with costs to the appellant
Legal Topics
Affidavit Admissibility, Setting Aside Judgment in Default, Court Discretion to Prevent Injustice, Abuse of Process, Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Affidavit Admissibility Setting Aside Judgment in Default Court Discretion to Prevent Injustice Abuse of Process Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ang Siang Ping

Appellant (defendant in Sessions Court)

Unity Stationery Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent (plaintiff in Sessions Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Exclusion of Affidavit in Reply (application to Set Aside Judgment in Default) / High Court Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a late affidavit in reply should be excluded where it responds to a corrective affidavit filed on the court-ordered deadline day
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of the affidavit denied procedural fairness and caused injustice to the appellant
  3. 3 Whether Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012 empowers the court to prevent such injustice and to curb abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Where a plaintiff filed a corrective affidavit on the court-ordered deadline disclosing the full document for the first time, it was unjust and unfair to exclude the defendant's affidavit in reply filed within the 14-day reply period and shortly before the hearing; Order 92 Rule 4 empowers the Court to prevent such injustice and to curb abuse of process, therefore the exclusion order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order excluding the appellant's affidavit in reply set aside; appeal allowed with costs to the appellant

Orders

  • Sessions Court's order excluding the appellant's last Affidavit In Reply is set aside
  • Appeal allowed