SUHAINI BIN MOHAMMAD 1. ) PANDAN HOTEL SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 799943-H) 2. ) BILLION MEWAH SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 905597-T)

SUHAINI BIN MOHAMMAD 1. ) PANDAN HOTEL SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 799943-H) 2. ) BILLION MEWAH SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 905597-T)

The JID was regularly obtained by contractual service under the tenancy agreement; the applicant filed the setting‑aside application after an unexplained and substantial delay (approx. six months) contrary to the mandatory 30‑day rule and offered no satisfactory explanation; the pleaded defence lacked merit and did not raise the separate legal entity issue; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the learned Sessions Court decision is upheld.

Citation
JA-12A-11-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Second Defendant: SUHAINI BIN MOHAMMAD; First Respondent / Plaintiff: PANDAN HOTEL SDN. BHD.; Second Respondent / First Defendant: BILLION MEWAH SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Case Number
JA-12A-11-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judgment in Default, Service of Process, Setting Aside Judgment, Pleadings, Delay and Laches, Joint and Several Liability, Interpretation Acts S12
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tenancy Law Company Law Judgment in Default Service of Process Setting Aside Judgment Pleadings +3 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUHAINI BIN MOHAMMAD

Appellant / Second Defendant

PANDAN HOTEL SDN. BHD.

First Respondent / Plaintiff

BILLION MEWAH SDN BHD

Second Respondent / First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in default was regularly obtained
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfactorily explained delay in applying to set aside
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had a bona fide defence on the merits (separate legal entity / transfer of shares / resignation)

Ratio Decidendi

The JID was regularly obtained by contractual service under the tenancy agreement; the applicant filed the setting‑aside application after an unexplained and substantial delay (approx. six months) contrary to the mandatory 30‑day rule and offered no satisfactory explanation; the pleaded defence lacked merit and did not raise the separate legal entity issue; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the learned Sessions Court decision is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs (subject to allocatur fees)