1. ) LEE MAN CHEONG 2. ) LEE CHOI CHAN 1. ) Lee Woon Yong (Sebagai Dahulunya Wasi Dan Pemegang Amanah Estet Lee Moah & Lee Ah Tuck (No. K/p: 360810-06-5025), Melalui Geran Probet Bertarikh 19.3.2021 Dalam Guaman Di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lum

1. ) LEE MAN CHEONG 2. ) LEE CHOI CHAN 1. ) Lee Woon Yong (Sebagai Dahulunya Wasi Dan Pemegang Amanah Estet Lee Moah & Lee Ah Tuck (No. K/p: 360810-06-5025), Melalui Geran Probet Bertarikh 19.3.2021 Dalam Guaman Di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lum

The application was dismissed because the defendants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for repeated non‑appearances, relied on a counsel‑affirmed affidavit that did not establish the reasons nor the merits of the defence, and failed to produce evidence (eg medical records) to support the substantive claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-671-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: LEE MAN CHEONG; Plaintiff: LEE CHOI CHAN; Defendant: LEE WOON YONG; Defendant: LEE SHENG XIAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-671-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (probate/estate) / Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default Under Order 42 R.13/order 92 R.4
Outcome
Application to set aside Judgment in Default dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment in Default, Failure to Appear, Affidavit Requirements, Testamentary Capacity, Inherent Powers of the Court, Costs
Civil Procedure Probate and Succession Trusts and Estates Setting Aside Judgment in Default Failure to Appear Affidavit Requirements Testamentary Capacity Inherent Powers of the Court +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE MAN CHEONG

Plaintiff

LEE CHOI CHAN

Plaintiff

LEE WOON YONG

Defendant

LEE SHENG XIAN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (probate/estate) / Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default Under Order 42 R.13/order 92 R.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judgment in Default should be set aside under Order 42 r.13 and the Court's inherent powers (O.92 r.4)
  2. 2 Whether an affidavit affirmed by counsel can substitute for the defendants' own affidavit to explain non‑appearance and establish merits
  3. 3 Whether the defendants demonstrated an arguable defence (including evidence of lack of testamentary capacity)

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the defendants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for repeated non‑appearances, relied on a counsel‑affirmed affidavit that did not establish the reasons nor the merits of the defence, and failed to produce evidence (eg medical records) to support the substantive claim of lack of testamentary capacity; therefore the JID would not be set aside and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside Judgment in Default dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the Judgment in Default dismissed
  • Judgment in Default to remain in force