Great Eastern General Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad (Company No.: 12249-P) … Plaintiff KL Risk Management Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 185671-T)

Great Eastern General Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad (Company No.: 12249-P) … Plaintiff KL Risk Management Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 185671-T)

The appeal is dismissed because the application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Appearance was filed beyond the 30-day period mandated by Order 42 r 13 without a satisfactory explanation for delay, and the proposed defence to the debt claim amounted to a bare denial lacking merit; therefore the Sessions Court's refusal to set aside the JID was correct.

Citation
WA-12ANCC-105-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: KL Risk Management Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: Great Eastern General Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 February 2021
Case Number
WA-12ANCC-105-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default of Appearance (debt Recovery) / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Extension of Time and Delay, Service on Registered Office, Quantum Dispute
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Agency Law Insurance Law Debt Recovery Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Extension of Time and Delay +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KL Risk Management Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant

Great Eastern General Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default of Appearance (debt Recovery) / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Appearance was filed within the prescribed time or whether there was a satisfactory explanation for delay
  2. 2 Whether the defendant put forward a meritorious defence to the plaintiff's debt claim
  3. 3 Whether service at the defendant's registered office constituted good service and triggered the running of limitation for setting aside

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Appearance was filed beyond the 30-day period mandated by Order 42 r 13 without a satisfactory explanation for delay, and the proposed defence to the debt claim amounted to a bare denial lacking merit; therefore the Sessions Court's refusal to set aside the JID was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM1,000.00 (subject to 4% allocator)
  • Enclosure 9 (application to adduce fresh evidence) withdrawn and struck off with no order as to costs