GUNALAN A/L PECHIMUTU 1. ) JEYA PRAKASH A/L ARASAN 2. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

GUNALAN A/L PECHIMUTU 1. ) JEYA PRAKASH A/L ARASAN 2. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

The application (Lampiran 91) failed because it was procedurally defective for not specifying the legal provisions relied on, the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to hear the application, and on the merits the interlocutory/default judgment of 29/3/2017 was a final, regularly obtained judgment; Defendant 2 delayed unreasonably, failed to demonstrate a prima facie defence, and was not the proper party at this stage to set aside the judgment, therefore the application is dismissed.

Citation
A53KJ-894-10/2015 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gunalan a/l Pechimuthu; Defendant 1: Jeya Prakash a/l Arasan; Defendant 2: Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 February 2023
Case Number
A53KJ-894-10/2015 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Writ of Summons (civil) / Interlocutory
Outcome
Notis Permohonan Defendan Ke‑2 di Lampiran 91 dismissed without order as to costs
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Interlocutory Judgment, Declaration, Estoppel, Default Judgment, Stay of Execution, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Tort Motor Vehicle Accidents Judgment Enforcement Setting Aside Judgment Interlocutory Judgment Declaration Estoppel +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gunalan a/l Pechimuthu

Plaintiff

Jeya Prakash a/l Arasan

Defendant 1

Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad

Defendant 2

Procedural Posture

Writ of Summons (civil) / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to hear Lampiran 91 while related appeals were pending
  2. 2 Whether Defendant 2 (insurer) had locus to apply to set aside the interlocutory/default judgment dated 29/3/2017
  3. 3 Whether Lampiran 91 was procedurally defective for failing to state the statutory provision relied upon

Ratio Decidendi

The application (Lampiran 91) failed because it was procedurally defective for not specifying the legal provisions relied on, the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to hear the application, and on the merits the interlocutory/default judgment of 29/3/2017 was a final, regularly obtained judgment; Defendant 2 delayed unreasonably, failed to demonstrate a prima facie defence, and was not the proper party at this stage to set aside the judgment, therefore the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notis Permohonan Defendan Ke‑2 di Lampiran 91 dismissed without order as to costs

Orders

  • Notis Permohonan Defendan Ke-2 (Lampiran 91) ditolak tanpa perintah kos