BI CREDIT AND LEASING BERHAD (COMPANY NO. 67040-T) ENG CHEN CHEN (NRIC NO: 720220-016254)

BI CREDIT AND LEASING BERHAD (COMPANY NO. 67040-T) ENG CHEN CHEN (NRIC NO: 720220-016254)

The court held the defendant's limitation defence succeeded on earlier interlocutory rulings such that the plaintiff's claim for shortfall and the earlier application for Order for Sale were time-barred; the plaintiff's attempt to refer legal questions was a collateral attack on the court's earlier decision and therefore dismissed; summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim was granted and costs awarded, with quantum to be assessed by the Registrar.

Citation
JA-22NCVC-187-09/2018 [ LAMPIRAN 36] (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: BI CREDIT AND LEASING BERHAD; Defendant: ENG CHEN CHEN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Case Number
JA-22NCVC-187-09/2018 [ LAMPIRAN 36] (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Summary Judgment Application and Order 14 a Referral
Outcome
Enclosure (36) allowed with costs; Enclosure (38) dismissed with costs; quantum to be assessed by the Registrar.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Counterclaim, Limitation Period, Order for Sale, Public Auction, Res Judicata, Inherent Jurisdiction, Section 418 National Land Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Property Law Land Law Limitation Law Contract Law Summary Judgment Counterclaim Limitation Period +5 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BI CREDIT AND LEASING BERHAD

Plaintiff

ENG CHEN CHEN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Summary Judgment Application and Order 14 a Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise inherent jurisdiction to set aside its earlier decision
  2. 2 Whether the questions of law posed under Order 14A are bona fide or a collateral attack on an earlier decision
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the counterclaim that the foreclosure sale/auction is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the defendant's limitation defence succeeded on earlier interlocutory rulings such that the plaintiff's claim for shortfall and the earlier application for Order for Sale were time-barred; the plaintiff's attempt to refer legal questions was a collateral attack on the court's earlier decision and therefore dismissed; summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim was granted and costs awarded, with quantum to be assessed by the Registrar.

Court Disposition

Enclosure (36) allowed with costs; Enclosure (38) dismissed with costs; quantum to be assessed by the Registrar.

Orders

  • Enclosure (38) dismissed with costs
  • Enclosure (36) allowed with costs