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 found the Defendant's limitation defence succeeded and the Plaintiff's claim for shortfall and the earlier application for order for sale were time-barred; therefore the Plaintiff's attempt under Order 14A was an impermissible re‑visitation of the court's earlier determinations and was dismissed; the Defendant's summary judgment application was allowed and quantum assessed by the Registrar.

Citation
JA-22NCVC-187-09/2018 [ LAMPIRAN 38] (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 38] (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications (order 14 and Order 14 A)
Outcome
Enclosure 38 dismissed with costs; Enclosure 36 allowed with costs; quantum to be assessed by the Registrar.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Order for Sale, Auction, Statute of Limitation, Res Judicata, Striking Out, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Property Law Land Law Contract Law Limitation Law Summary Judgment Order for Sale Auction +4 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 3 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 and Interlocutory Applications (order 14 and Order 14 A)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should exercise inherent jurisdiction to revisit its earlier decision
  2. 2 Whether the questions of law proffered under Order 14A are bona fide or a disguised attempt to revisit earlier decision
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim based on limitation/invalidity of auction is maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Defendant's limitation defence succeeded and the Plaintiff's claim for shortfall and the earlier application for order for sale were time-barred; therefore the Plaintiff's attempt under Order 14A was an impermissible re‑visitation of the court's earlier determinations and was dismissed; the Defendant's summary judgment application was allowed and quantum assessed by the Registrar.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Enclosure 38 (Plaintiff's Order 14A application) dismissed with costs
  • Enclosure 36 (Defendant's summary judgment application) allowed with costs; quantum to be assessed by the Registrar