1. ) CRAB CAR RESOURCES 2. ) SS LOUNGE ENTERTAINMENT SIM HOOI MOY

1. ) CRAB CAR RESOURCES 2. ) SS LOUNGE ENTERTAINMENT SIM HOOI MOY

The Sessions Court did not err in striking out the appellants' defence and counterclaim because they filed pleadings approximately nine months late in breach of the mandatory provision in Order 18 r 2(1), provided no reasonable explanation or application for extension, and the delay was excessive; absent plain error...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PA-12ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant 1: CRAB CAR RESOURCES (PG0417760-W); Appellant / Defendant 2: SS LOUNGE ENTERTAINMENT (PG0489816-X); Respondent / Plaintiff: SIM HOOI MOY (750415-07-5630); Defendant (original, Not Party to This Appeal): CHEW HOCK LYE (720924-07-5551)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 October 2024
Case Number
PA-12ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (appeal rejected)
Legal Topics
Striking Out Defences, Extension of Time, Rules of Court Compliance, Costs
Civil Procedure Civil Litigation Striking Out Defences Extension of Time Rules of Court Compliance Costs

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CRAB CAR RESOURCES (PG0417760-W)

Appellant / Defendant 1

SS LOUNGE ENTERTAINMENT (PG0489816-X)

Appellant / Defendant 2

SIM HOOI MOY (750415-07-5630)

Respondent / Plaintiff

CHEW HOCK LYE (720924-07-5551)

Defendant (original, Not Party to This Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late filing of defence and counterclaim justified striking them out
  2. 2 Whether delay was excusable or curable and whether merits should prevail over procedural non-compliance
  3. 3 Whether appellate court should interfere with the Sessions Court decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court did not err in striking out the appellants' defence and counterclaim because they filed pleadings approximately nine months late in breach of the mandatory provision in Order 18 r 2(1), provided no reasonable explanation or application for extension, and the delay was excessive; absent plain error by the lower court, the appellate court will not interfere.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (appeal rejected)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed.