NORMALAR BINTI MUHAMMADAN GHAZALI BIN MUHAMADAN

NORMALAR BINTI MUHAMMADAN GHAZALI BIN MUHAMADAN

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for judgment in default because the defendant's delay was not deliberate or intended to abuse process, the defence was filed before the next case management date, there was no substantive prejudice to the plaintiff, and while plaintiff's counsel breached Rule 56 ethically by not giving seven days' notice, that breach did not mandate recording default judgment; justice required allowing the matter to proceed on its merits, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-284-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintif: NORMALAR BINTI MUHAMMADAN; Defendan: GHAZALI BIN MUHAMADAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 January 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-284-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (guaman Sivil) / Interlocutory Application to Record Judgment in Default of Defence Under Order 19 Rule 6 Rules of Court 2012; High Court Decision on Application (case Management/interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for judgment in default of defence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Extension of Time, Rule 56 Legal Profession (practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, Prejudice, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Property Law Professional Ethics Default Judgment Extension of Time Rule 56 Legal Profession (practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 Prejudice Costs

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NORMALAR BINTI MUHAMMADAN

Plaintif

GHAZALI BIN MUHAMADAN

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (guaman Sivil) / Interlocutory Application to Record Judgment in Default of Defence Under Order 19 Rule 6 Rules of Court 2012; High Court Decision on Application (case Management/interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's failure to file defence within the ordered time justified recording judgment in default of defence
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with Rule 56 Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 by plaintiff's counsel precludes the court from exercising its discretion to refuse default judgment
  3. 3 Whether the delay by defendant was deliberate or prejudicial to plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for judgment in default because the defendant's delay was not deliberate or intended to abuse process, the defence was filed before the next case management date, there was no substantive prejudice to the plaintiff, and while plaintiff's counsel breached Rule 56 ethically by not giving seven days' notice, that breach did not mandate recording default judgment; justice required allowing the matter to proceed on its merits, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application for judgment in default of defence dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to record judgment in default of defence dismissed.
  • Defendant to pay costs of RM1000 to Plaintiff immediately, subject to taxation (tertakluk kepada fi alokator).