GRANSTEP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 769692-A) 1. TAN CHONG HENG (No. K/P: 410615-10-5717) 2. TAN SOON LIN (No. K/P: 770807-05-5549) 3. TAN SOON CHER (No. K/P: 710321-05-5165) 4. TAN CHUI HOON (No. K/P: 690710-05-5286) 5. LEE TIEN LI

GRANSTEP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 769692-A) 1. TAN CHONG HENG (No. K/P: 410615-10-5717) 2. TAN SOON LIN (No. K/P: 770807-05-5549) 3. TAN SOON CHER (No. K/P: 710321-05-5165) 4. TAN CHUI HOON (No. K/P: 690710-05-5286) 5. LEE TIEN LI

The default judgment was regular; the plaintiff produced convincing documentary evidence (six cheques, payment vouchers signed by TCHC's representative and an accounting) that the RM1,000,000 was paid and defendants failed to provide particulars or a credible rebuttal showing a prima facie defence on the merits; silence and lack of denial in earlier correspondence and the defendants' execution of guarantees further supported the plaintiff's position; therefore the defendants' application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and the defendants' post-judgment memorandum of appearance (filed without leave) was set aside.

Citation
WA-22NCC-159-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Granstep Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Tan Chong Heng; Defendant: Tan Soon Lin; Defendant: Tan Soon Cher; Defendant: Tan Chui Hoon; Defendant: Lee Tien Lit
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCC-159-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Repayment Under Loan and Enforcement of Guarantees / Hearing and Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment and to Set Aside Memorandum of Appearance (applications Heard Together; Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Defendants' application to set aside the Judgment in Default (Enclosure 12) dismissed; Plaintiff's application to set aside the Defendants' Memorandum of Appearance dated 27.5.2020 (Enclosure 15) allowed
Legal Topics
Judgment in Default, Set Aside Default Judgment, Letters of Guarantee, Failure of Consideration, Proof of Payment, Deemed Service Clause, Affidavit of Merits, Effect of Judicial Management
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Surety and Guarantees Company Law Evidence Judgment in Default Set Aside Default Judgment Letters of Guarantee +5 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Granstep Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Tan Chong Heng

Defendant

Tan Soon Lin

Defendant

Tan Soon Cher

Defendant

Tan Chui Hoon

Defendant

Lee Tien Lit

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Repayment Under Loan and Enforcement of Guarantees / Hearing and Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment and to Set Aside Memorandum of Appearance (applications Heard Together; Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in default (JID) was regular
  2. 2 Whether the defendants demonstrated a prima facie defence on the merits to set aside the JID
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff proved payment of the RM1,000,000 loan

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was regular; the plaintiff produced convincing documentary evidence (six cheques, payment vouchers signed by TCHC's representative and an accounting) that the RM1,000,000 was paid and defendants failed to provide particulars or a credible rebuttal showing a prima facie defence on the merits; silence and lack of denial in earlier correspondence and the defendants' execution of guarantees further supported the plaintiff's position; therefore the defendants' application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and the defendants' post-judgment memorandum of appearance (filed without leave) was set aside.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to set aside the Judgment in Default (Enclosure 12) dismissed; Plaintiff's application to set aside the Defendants' Memorandum of Appearance dated 27.5.2020 (Enclosure 15) allowed

Orders

  • Enclosure 12 dismissed
  • Costs in Enclosure 12: RM3500 awarded to Plaintiff