LIM PEI YING LIM HUI TING

LIM PEI YING LIM HUI TING

The Notice of Appeal was filed and served after the 14-day statutory period and no admissible and satisfactory evidence justified the delay; the affidavit of the appellant's solicitor (Enclosure 7) was inadmissible because it addressed contentious matters and lacked supporting medical evidence; the extension application was filed only after the respondent moved to strike out and did not provide good reasons for delay; therefore the appeal was incompetent for want of jurisdiction and must be dismissed in limine.

Citation
JB-11ANCVC-3-04/2021 (ENCLOSURE 17) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Lim Pei Ying; Respondent/plaintiff: Lim Hui Ting
Court
ENCLOSURE 17
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 November 2021
Case Number
JB-11ANCVC-3-04/2021 (ENCLOSURE 17) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (from Magistrates' Court) / Determination of Competency of Appeal and Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in limine for incompetency; Enclosure 4 (application to strike out) allowed; Enclosure 6 (application for extension of time) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Filing Notice of Appeal, Notice of Appeal Time Limits, Judgment in Default, Admissibility of Solicitor Affirmed Affidavits, Preliminary Objection to Competence of Appeal, Striking Out Appeals
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Appeals Legal Ethics Extension of Time for Filing Notice of Appeal Notice of Appeal Time Limits Judgment in Default Admissibility of Solicitor Affirmed Affidavits Preliminary Objection to Competence of Appeal +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lim Pei Ying

Appellant/defendant

Lim Hui Ting

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (from Magistrates' Court) / Determination of Competency of Appeal and Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Appeal filed outside the 14-day period rendered the appeal incompetent and divested the High Court of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether leave for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit affirmed by the appellant's solicitor (Enclosure 7) was admissible given Rule 28 and Order 41 r.5

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Appeal was filed and served after the 14-day statutory period and no admissible and satisfactory evidence justified the delay; the affidavit of the appellant's solicitor (Enclosure 7) was inadmissible because it addressed contentious matters and lacked supporting medical evidence; the extension application was filed only after the respondent moved to strike out and did not provide good reasons for delay; therefore the appeal was incompetent for want of jurisdiction and must be dismissed in limine.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in limine for incompetency; Enclosure 4 (application to strike out) allowed; Enclosure 6 (application for extension of time) dismissed.

Orders

  • Enclosure 4 allowed (appeal struck out)
  • Enclosure 6 dismissed (application for extension of time dismissed)