Dee Eng Seng Lim Soon Seng

Dee Eng Seng Lim Soon Seng

The court held it possessed jurisdiction under its inherent powers and Rules of Court (Order 45 r.6 read with Order 42 r.6) to allow an application to prescribe time in a consent judgment as a procedural, ancillary measure under the liberty to apply doctrine; the SAR-approved order of 3.9.2020 contained a mistake/was inoperable until directions dated 30.9.2020 were complied with and the plaintiff's application to vary the order (Enclosure 50) is allowed in part; stay of execution is justified until the prescribed directions are complied with.

Citation
AB-12BNCVC-14-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Lim Soon Seng; Respondent/plaintiff: Dee Eng Seng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 May 2021
Case Number
AB-12BNCVC-14-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (application to Prescribe Time in Consent Judgment) / High Court Judgment on Applications (enclosures 23, 41 and 50)
Outcome
Application to vary order (Enclosure 50) allowed partially; stay of execution (Enclosure 23) granted until compliance with directions dated 30.9.2020; SAR-approved order dated 3.9.2020 declared inoperable until directions complied with.
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Liberty to Apply, Functus Officio, Inherent Jurisdiction, Slip Rule (order 20 R11), Prescribing Time for Performance, Stay of Execution
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Partnership Law Equity and Remedies Consent Judgment Liberty to Apply Functus Officio Inherent Jurisdiction +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lim Soon Seng

Appellant/defendant

Dee Eng Seng

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (application to Prescribe Time in Consent Judgment) / High Court Judgment on Applications (enclosures 23, 41 and 50)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to prescribe time in a consent judgment
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of functus officio or res judicata prevents the court from making consequential orders
  3. 3 Whether the SAR-approved order dated 3.9.2020 contained a mistake and is correctable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held it possessed jurisdiction under its inherent powers and Rules of Court (Order 45 r.6 read with Order 42 r.6) to allow an application to prescribe time in a consent judgment as a procedural, ancillary measure under the liberty to apply doctrine; the SAR-approved order of 3.9.2020 contained a mistake/was inoperable until directions dated 30.9.2020 were complied with and the plaintiff's application to vary the order (Enclosure 50) is allowed in part; stay of execution is justified until the prescribed directions are complied with.

Court Disposition

Application to vary order (Enclosure 50) allowed partially; stay of execution (Enclosure 23) granted until compliance with directions dated 30.9.2020; SAR-approved order dated 3.9.2020 declared inoperable until directions complied with.

Orders

  • Enclosure 50 allowed partially to the extent the appeal and any variation shall not go beyond terms, intent and spirit of Enclosure 41 and is subject to this Court's directions dated 30.9.2020
  • Stay of execution of the consent judgment and any enforcement of the order approved on 3.9.2020 is granted until compliance with the directions of this Court dated 30.9.2020