LEE CHAU SENG 1. ) HIEW WILSON 2. ) TECK NIC PLUMBING CONTRACTOR SDN BHD

LEE CHAU SENG 1. ) HIEW WILSON 2. ) TECK NIC PLUMBING CONTRACTOR SDN BHD

The application was dismissed because it was filed outside the mandatory 30‑day period under O 42 r 13 without satisfactory explanation or a granted extension under O 3 r 5; defendants pursued the wrong procedure for a mistake of fact (should have commenced a fresh action) and failed to produce evidence to rebut JPJ ownership; allowing the application would prejudice the plaintiff. Consequently Lampiran 13 is dismissed with costs RM1,000.

Citation
JA-A53KJ-186-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintif: Lee Chau Seng; Defendan: Hiew Wilson; Defendan: Teck Nic Plumbing Contractor Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Case Number
JA-A53KJ-186-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (motor Accident/personal Injury) / Application to Set Aside Consent Judgment Under O 42 R 13 and for Extension of Time Under O 3 R 5 at Trial Court
Outcome
Lampiran 13 (application to set aside consent judgment) dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Consent Judgment, Extension of Time, Mistake of Fact, Procedure for Fresh Action, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Insurance Law Tort (motor Accident) Evidence Setting Aside Consent Judgment Extension of Time Mistake of Fact +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Chau Seng

Plaintif

Hiew Wilson

Defendan

Teck Nic Plumbing Contractor Sdn Bhd

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (motor Accident/personal Injury) / Application to Set Aside Consent Judgment Under O 42 R 13 and for Extension of Time Under O 3 R 5 at Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside a consent judgment filed out of time should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether mistake of fact (conflicting JPJ and insurance records) justifies setting aside the consent judgment
  3. 3 Whether the correct procedure is a fresh action rather than an application under O 42 r 13

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was filed outside the mandatory 30‑day period under O 42 r 13 without satisfactory explanation or a granted extension under O 3 r 5; defendants pursued the wrong procedure for a mistake of fact (should have commenced a fresh action) and failed to produce evidence to rebut JPJ ownership; allowing the application would prejudice the plaintiff. Consequently Lampiran 13 is dismissed with costs RM1,000.

Court Disposition

Lampiran 13 (application to set aside consent judgment) dismissed

Orders

  • Lampiran 13 dismissed
  • Cost ordered against defendants RM1000.00