BERJAYA WATERFRONT SDN. BHD. 1. ) ANCHOR PUB SDN. BHD. 2. ) NALLATHAMBI A/L N SUPPIAN 3. ) S RAMAYAH A/L N SUPPIAH

BERJAYA WATERFRONT SDN. BHD. 1. ) ANCHOR PUB SDN. BHD. 2. ) NALLATHAMBI A/L N SUPPIAN 3. ) S RAMAYAH A/L N SUPPIAH

Service by A.R. registered post was proper and acknowledged; the 3rd Defendant appeared earlier but failed to file a Statement of Defence and later failed to give satisfactory explanation for the 10-month delay; he did not demonstrate a prima facie meritorious defence; accordingly the application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Defence was dismissed and the JID upheld.

Citation
JA-22NCvC-165-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: BERJAYA WATERFRONT SDN. BHD.; 1st Defendant: ANCHOR PUB SDN. BHD.; 2nd Defendant: NALLATHAMBI A/L SUPPIAN; 3rd Defendant: S RAMAYAH A/L N SUPPIAH
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 August 2024
Case Number
JA-22NCvC-165-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default of Defence
Outcome
Application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Defence dismissed; Judgment in Default of Defence upheld.
Legal Topics
Judgment in Default of Defence, Service of Process, Setting Aside Judgment, Delay and Laches, Statement of Defence, Vacant Possession
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement Property Bankruptcy Judgment in Default of Defence Service of Process Setting Aside Judgment Delay and Laches +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BERJAYA WATERFRONT SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff

ANCHOR PUB SDN. BHD.

1st Defendant

NALLATHAMBI A/L SUPPIAN

2nd Defendant

S RAMAYAH A/L N SUPPIAH

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service by A.R. registered post was valid
  2. 2 Whether the JID was irregularly obtained
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd Defendant had a prima facie/meritorious defence

Ratio Decidendi

Service by A.R. registered post was proper and acknowledged; the 3rd Defendant appeared earlier but failed to file a Statement of Defence and later failed to give satisfactory explanation for the 10-month delay; he did not demonstrate a prima facie meritorious defence; accordingly the application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Defence was dismissed and the JID upheld.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the Judgment in Default of Defence dismissed; Judgment in Default of Defence upheld.

Orders

  • Dismissed the 3rd Defendant's application in enclosure 24 to set aside the Judgment in Default of Defence.
  • JID pronounced on 11.4.2023 for payment of a sum of money and delivery of vacant possession of D6, Fun Zon, Berjaya Waterfront Complex remains in force.