1. ) KHU KIM HWA 2. ) ZUL BIN MOHAMAD TETUAN S.K. SONG

1. ) KHU KIM HWA 2. ) ZUL BIN MOHAMAD TETUAN S.K. SONG

High Court held that the garnishee, being a stakeholder with knowledge of the deceased's direction and having received full purchase price after the contingent event (sale completion), was obliged to pay RM50,000 to plaintiff1; plaintiff2 failed to prove the allegedly directed RM33,000; procedural defect in wording of the show-cause order did not defeat substantive entitlement under Order 49(1) and Rule 1A.

Citation
JA-11ANCvC-12-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Khu Kim Hwa; Appellant/plaintiff: Zul Bin Mohamad; Respondent/judgment Debtor (representative): Oh Say Lee (as representative of deceased Oh Keat Hock); Respondent/garnishee (solicitor and Stakeholder): Tetuan S.K Song
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 January 2024
Case Number
JA-11ANCvC-12-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Decision on Appeal From Magistrate Concerning Garnishee Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: garnishee order made absolute as to RM50,000 in favour of plaintiff1; appeal dismissed as to plaintiff2
Legal Topics
Garnishee Order, Attachment of Debt, Stakeholder Liability, Procedural Irregularity Vs Substantive Justice
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgment Trusts and Trustees (stakeholder) Garnishee Order Attachment of Debt Stakeholder Liability Procedural Irregularity Vs Substantive Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khu Kim Hwa

Appellant/plaintiff

Zul Bin Mohamad

Appellant/plaintiff

Oh Say Lee (as representative of deceased Oh Keat Hock)

Respondent/judgment Debtor (representative)

Tetuan S.K Song

Respondent/garnishee (solicitor and Stakeholder)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Decision on Appeal From Magistrate Concerning Garnishee Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a debt was due from the garnishee to the judgment debtor
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte/inter partes show-cause garnishee order was defective and fatal
  3. 3 Whether funds held by the garnishee were estate assets or held as stakeholder subject to direction to pay judgment creditors

Ratio Decidendi

High Court held that the garnishee, being a stakeholder with knowledge of the deceased's direction and having received full purchase price after the contingent event (sale completion), was obliged to pay RM50,000 to plaintiff1; plaintiff2 failed to prove the allegedly directed RM33,000; procedural defect in wording of the show-cause order did not defeat substantive entitlement under Order 49(1) and Rule 1A.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: garnishee order made absolute as to RM50,000 in favour of plaintiff1; appeal dismissed as to plaintiff2

Orders

  • Perintah Orang Digarnis Untuk Menunjuk Sebab bertarikh 31.1.2023 difailkan oleh plaintif pertama dijadikan mutlak dan Orang Digarnis hendaklah membayar RM50,000.00 kepada plaintif pertama
  • Perintah Orang Digarnis Untuk Menunjuk Sebab bertarikh 31.1.2023 difailkan oleh plaintif kedua diketepikan