LIM HUN SWEE LEE KWEE HIANG

LIM HUN SWEE LEE KWEE HIANG

The application was set aside because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Order 49 r.2 (affidavit did not identify garnishees or disclose sources/grounds for belief), filed a supplemental affidavit without leave that contradicted the original affidavit, failed to name garnishees in the intitulment as required by Form 97, and improperly sought to use inherent jurisdiction to compel bank disclosure instead of following specific procedures (including Order 48); these failures were fatal to an ex parte garnishee application.

Citation
JA-37G-27-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor / Plaintiff: LHS; Judgment Debtor / Defendant: LKH
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 September 2023
Case Number
JA-37G-27-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Application for Garnishee Order (order 49 Rules of Court) / Ex Parte Application and Subsequent Hearing on Compliance and Disclosure
Outcome
Application in Annex 1 dismissed/cancelled with liberty to refile; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Garnishee Order, Affidavit of Information and Belief, Ex Parte Disclosure Obligations, Inherent Jurisdiction, Naming of Parties in Court Forms, Supplementary Affidavits
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgment Banking Law Data Protection Garnishee Order Affidavit of Information and Belief Ex Parte Disclosure Obligations Inherent Jurisdiction +2 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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LHS

Judgment Creditor / Plaintiff

LKH

Judgment Debtor / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Garnishee Order (order 49 Rules of Court) / Ex Parte Application and Subsequent Hearing on Compliance and Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 49 r.2 mandatory requirements were complied with
  2. 2 Whether affidavit based on information and belief disclosed sources and grounds
  3. 3 Whether applicant may rely on inherent jurisdiction to compel bank account disclosure in garnishee proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application was set aside because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Order 49 r.2 (affidavit did not identify garnishees or disclose sources/grounds for belief), filed a supplemental affidavit without leave that contradicted the original affidavit, failed to name garnishees in the intitulment as required by Form 97, and improperly sought to use inherent jurisdiction to compel bank disclosure instead of following specific procedures (including Order 48); these failures were fatal to an ex parte garnishee application.

Court Disposition

Application in Annex 1 dismissed/cancelled with liberty to refile; no order as to costs

Orders

  • The garnishee application in Annex 1 is dismissed/cancelled.
  • Liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application.