1. LUCY WONG NYUK KING (F) 2. IK NGI PIAU HWANG MEE HIONG (F)

1. LUCY WONG NYUK KING (F) 2. IK NGI PIAU HWANG MEE HIONG (F)

The appeal was allowed because the Judicial Commissioner erred in entertaining and granting the defendant's preliminary objection after this Court had reinstated Enclosure 68; Order 37 generally governs assessments before a Registrar/SAR and does not automatically apply to an assessment before a High Court Judge/JC by equating the Registrar with a Judge; the COA having ordered assessment by the Court or by Deputy Registrar/SAR permitted assessment before a Judge/JC and Enclosure 68 must be remitted to the High Court for hearing before the Judge/JC, costs RM3,000 awarded.

Citation
Q-02(IM)-1127-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
1st Appellant: Lucy Wong Nyuk King; 2nd Appellant: Ik Ngi Piau; Respondent: Hwang Mee Hiong
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 April 2019
Case Number
Q-02(IM)-1127-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Removal of Caveat, Assessment of Damages, Order 37 Rules of Court 2012, Jurisdiction of Registrar Vs Judge, Preliminary Objection, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Removal of Caveat Assessment of Damages Order 37 Rules of Court 2012 Jurisdiction of Registrar Vs Judge Preliminary Objection +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Wong Nyuk King

1st Appellant

Ik Ngi Piau

2nd Appellant

Hwang Mee Hiong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assessment before a High Court Judge/Judicial Commissioner is governed by Order 37 Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the Judicial Commissioner had jurisdiction to strike out Enclosure 68 after this Court reinstated it
  3. 3 Whether the definition of "Registrar" in the Rules of Court includes a High Court Judge/Judicial Commissioner

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Judicial Commissioner erred in entertaining and granting the defendant's preliminary objection after this Court had reinstated Enclosure 68; Order 37 generally governs assessments before a Registrar/SAR and does not automatically apply to an assessment before a High Court Judge/JC by equating the Registrar with a Judge; the COA having ordered assessment by the Court or by Deputy Registrar/SAR permitted assessment before a Judge/JC and Enclosure 68 must be remitted to the High Court for hearing before the Judge/JC, costs RM3,000 awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Allow appeal with costs of RM3000.00 subject to payment of allocatur fees
  • Set aside High Court Order dated 28.4.2017