RE YEAP CHEE FUN EX P PERNAS TRADING SDN BHD

RE YEAP CHEE FUN EX P PERNAS TRADING SDN BHD

The court admitted the earlier affidavit in its discretion, allowed the lumped exhibits despite non-compliance with O.41 r.11 because no prejudice was shown, found on the chronology and process-server affidavits that the judgment debtor was evading service, held that Practice Note No.1 of 1968 only requires substantial compliance, and concluded that substituted service was properly ordered and effected irrespective of the debtor's actual awareness; appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
RE YEAP CHEE FUN EX P PERNAS TRADING SDN BHD
Parties
Judgment Debtor / Appellant: Yeap Chee Fun; Judgment Creditor / Respondent: Pernas Trading Sdn Bhd
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Appeal From Deputy Registrar
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Practice Note No.1 of 1968 Compliance, Affidavit Admissibility Under O.32 R.13, Exhibit Identification Under O.41 R.11, Evading Service, Validity of Substituted Service
Source Language
en
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Affidavits Service of Process Substituted Service Practice Note No.1 of 1968 Compliance Affidavit Admissibility Under O.32 R.13 Exhibit Identification Under O.41 R.11 +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeap Chee Fun

Judgment Debtor / Appellant

Pernas Trading Sdn Bhd

Judgment Creditor / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Appeal From Deputy Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted service was null and void
  2. 2 Whether attempts were made at the judgment debtor's last known address
  3. 3 Whether Practice Note No.1 of 1968 was complied with or required in full

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted the earlier affidavit in its discretion, allowed the lumped exhibits despite non-compliance with O.41 r.11 because no prejudice was shown, found on the chronology and process-server affidavits that the judgment debtor was evading service, held that Practice Note No.1 of 1968 only requires substantial compliance, and concluded that substituted service was properly ordered and effected irrespective of the debtor's actual awareness; appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent