Diyana binti Anuar Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad

Diyana binti Anuar Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad

The JID was regular because service was effected pursuant to the Facility Agreement and Order 10 rule 3; the defendant failed to establish a prima facie defence as her denial of signing was contradicted by her receipt and use of the disbursed funds and she produced no evidence of the alleged refinancing scheme; criminal acts by an employee were held to be outside the course of employment so could not be imputed to the bank; accordingly there was no basis to set aside the JID and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
JA-12AM-1-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Diyana binti Anuar; Respondent/plaintiff: Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 January 2022
Case Number
JA-12AM-1-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default (heard on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of Sessions Court upheld
Legal Topics
Judgment in Default of Appearance, Service Pursuant to Contract, Set Aside of Default Judgment, Vicarious Liability, Fraud and Misrepresentation, Personal Financing Agreement
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Banking Law Tort/vicarious Liability Criminal Law (context) Judgment in Default of Appearance Service Pursuant to Contract Set Aside of Default Judgment +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diyana binti Anuar

Appellant/defendant

Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default (heard on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in default (JID) was regular given service pursuant to the Facility Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the defendant demonstrated a prima facie defence on the merits to justify setting aside the JID
  3. 3 Whether alleged criminal acts of a bank employee can be imputed to the bank (vicarious liability)

Ratio Decidendi

The JID was regular because service was effected pursuant to the Facility Agreement and Order 10 rule 3; the defendant failed to establish a prima facie defence as her denial of signing was contradicted by her receipt and use of the disbursed funds and she produced no evidence of the alleged refinancing scheme; criminal acts by an employee were held to be outside the course of employment so could not be imputed to the bank; accordingly there was no basis to set aside the JID and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of Sessions Court upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs