Ooi Chee Wee (NRIC No. 720720-07-5103) Lee Kok Kee (NRIC No. 760819-14-6027) 1. Sunray Nursery Sdn Bhd (Company No. 1163276-X) 2. Lee Kok Kee (NRIC No. 760819-14-6027) Ooi Chee Wee (NRIC No. 720720-07-5103)
Where there is credible evidence that the named defendant did not actually receive the sealed judgment (e.g., proof of absence abroad at the time of A.R. acknowledgement), there is no 'receipt' for the purpose of O 42 r 13 and time does not run; although service of writ by A.R. post to last known address is prima facie valid, a regularly obtained default judgment may nonetheless be set aside if the defendant demonstrates a bona fide prima facie defence worthy of trial. The court applied these rules to find no actual service of the judgment for limitation purposes and to allow setting aside on the basis of a prima facie defence.
- Citation
- PA-12ANCVC-18-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Appellant / 2nd Defendant: Lee Kok Kee; Respondent / Plaintiff: Ooi Chee Wee; 1st Defendant: Sunray Nursery Sdn Bhd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 17 January 2020
- Case Number
- PA-12ANCVC-18-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Hearing on Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default and Leave to Enter Appearance Out of Time
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; judgment in default set aside
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment in Default, Service by A.r. Registered Post, Regular Vs Irregular Judgment, Garnishee Proceedings, Prima Facie Defence
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lee Kok Kee
Appellant / 2nd Defendant
Ooi Chee Wee
Respondent / Plaintiff
Sunray Nursery Sdn Bhd
1st Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Hearing on Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default and Leave to Enter Appearance Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to set aside the default judgment was filed within time or delay was excused
- 2 Whether the default judgment was regular or irregular having regard to service of the writ and judgment
- 3 Whether the appellant established a bona fide prima facie defence on the merits
Ratio Decidendi
Where there is credible evidence that the named defendant did not actually receive the sealed judgment (e.g., proof of absence abroad at the time of A.R. acknowledgement), there is no 'receipt' for the purpose of O 42 r 13 and time does not run; although service of writ by A.R. post to last known address is prima facie valid, a regularly obtained default judgment may nonetheless be set aside if the defendant demonstrates a bona fide prima facie defence worthy of trial. The court applied these rules to find no actual service of the judgment for limitation purposes and to allow setting aside on the basis of a prima facie defence.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment in default set aside
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment in default entered on 12.11.2018 set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment