LF BUILDING TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. : 1224563-W) DURABLE HOLDINGS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 942806-A)

LF BUILDING TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. : 1224563-W) DURABLE HOLDINGS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 942806-A)

The Sessions Court decision was correct: service via A.R. registered delivery was regular and proved; defendant failed to discharge the burden under s.103 to show non-receipt or lack of knowledge and failed to establish a meritorious defence; the default judgment sum was correct as partial payment occurred after judgment; appeal dismissed and lower court order affirmed.

Citation
JA-12A NCC-7-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Former Defendant in Sessions Court: LF Building Technology (M) Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Former Plaintiff in Sessions Court: Durable Holdings Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 February 2020
Case Number
JA-12A NCC-7-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (application to Set Aside Default Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Process (personal and Substituted), Email Service, Burden of Proof, Meritorious Defence, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Evidence Default Judgment Service of Process (personal and Substituted) Email Service Burden of Proof Meritorious Defence +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LF Building Technology (M) Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Former Defendant in Sessions Court

Durable Holdings Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Former Plaintiff in Sessions Court

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (application to Set Aside Default Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was irregular/invalid for defective service
  2. 2 Whether the defendant demonstrated a meritorious defence warranting setting aside the default judgment
  3. 3 Whether the amount in the default judgment was incorrect given subsequent partial payment

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court decision was correct: service via A.R. registered delivery was regular and proved; defendant failed to discharge the burden under s.103 to show non-receipt or lack of knowledge and failed to establish a meritorious defence; the default judgment sum was correct as partial payment occurred after judgment; appeal dismissed and lower court order affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of Sessions Court affirmed