BANK SIMPANAN NASIONAL MOHD AZRIN BIN ABDUL RAHIM

BANK SIMPANAN NASIONAL MOHD AZRIN BIN ABDUL RAHIM

The application was dismissed because the Judgment Creditor failed to prove the premises were exclusively occupied by the Judgment Debtor or that the goods belonged exclusively to him; without such proof the court will not authorize forcible entry to avoid wrongful seizure and actionable trespass.

Citation
CF-76WSL-6-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Bank Simpanan Nasional; Judgment Debtor: Mohd Azrin Bin Abdul Rahim
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 December 2022
Case Number
CF-76WSL-6-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Application for Execution of Writ of Seizure and Sale (leave to Enter Premises and Use Reasonable Force) / Hearing of Enforcement Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Writ of Seizure and Sale, Execution Outside Office Hours, Use of Reasonable Force, Presumption of Ownership, Wrongful Seizure, Spousal Property (harta Sepencarian)
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Property Law Writ of Seizure and Sale Execution Outside Office Hours Use of Reasonable Force Presumption of Ownership Wrongful Seizure +1 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank Simpanan Nasional

Judgment Creditor

Mohd Azrin Bin Abdul Rahim

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Application for Execution of Writ of Seizure and Sale (leave to Enter Premises and Use Reasonable Force) / Hearing of Enforcement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to authorize entry and use of reasonable force to execute a Writ of Seizure and Sale
  2. 2 Whether the Judgment Creditor established that the execution premises are exclusively occupied by the Judgment Debtor so as to justify presuming ownership of goods
  3. 3 Whether the application should be granted at this juncture given risk of wrongful seizure

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Judgment Creditor failed to prove the premises were exclusively occupied by the Judgment Debtor or that the goods belonged exclusively to him; without such proof the court will not authorize forcible entry to avoid wrongful seizure and actionable trespass.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Orders

  • Application at encl. 16 dismissed
  • No order as to costs