HERMIE BIN MD TAHIR AMBANK (M) BERHAD

HERMIE BIN MD TAHIR AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Three months’ delay after the Summary Judgment Appeal Decision was not inordinate or shown to be intentional or contumelious and the defendant failed to particularize any prejudice by affidavit; accordingly there was no abuse of process or basis to strike out the claim under O.18 r.19(1)(d) or the court’s inherent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-12AM-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Hermie Bin Md Tahir; Respondent: AmBank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 June 2020
Case Number
WA-12AM-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (strike Out Application) / High Court Appeal (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court dated 31.12.2019 affirmed; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Striking Out Under O.18 R.19 ROC 2012, Want of Prosecution, Summary Judgment, Laches, Consolidation of Suits
Civil Procedure Court Practice Contract Banking Law Equity Abuse of Process Striking Out Under O.18 R.19 ROC 2012 Want of Prosecution +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hermie Bin Md Tahir

Appellant

AmBank Berhad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (strike Out Application) / High Court Appeal (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff’s 90-day delay in setting the matter down for trial after the Summary Judgment Appeal Decision constituted an abuse of process warranting striking out under O.18 r.19(1)(d) ROC 2012 or the court’s inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the defendant proved prejudice caused by the delay sufficient to justify dismissal for want of prosecution
  3. 3 Whether laches was applicable given the facts

Ratio Decidendi

Three months’ delay after the Summary Judgment Appeal Decision was not inordinate or shown to be intentional or contumelious and the defendant failed to particularize any prejudice by affidavit; accordingly there was no abuse of process or basis to strike out the claim under O.18 r.19(1)(d) or the court’s inherent jurisdiction and the Sessions Court’s dismissal of the striking out application is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court dated 31.12.2019 affirmed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 31.12.2019 affirmed