Gurmit Singh for the Plaintiff [Messrs Sharif & Khoo] 1. ) P. Jeyakumar and Normadiah binti Mohammad for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants [Messrs Zahir Jeya & Zainal] 2. ) Jessica Chong Ee Min for the 1st and 4th Defendants [Messrs Lim Kian Leong

Gurmit Singh for the Plaintiff [Messrs Sharif & Khoo] 1. ) P. Jeyakumar and Normadiah binti Mohammad for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants [Messrs Zahir Jeya & Zainal] 2. ) Jessica Chong Ee Min for the 1st and 4th Defendants [Messrs Lim Kian Leong

The consent judgment was perfected and did not contain a penal notice; the court lacks jurisdiction to vary its terms or read words into it absent mutual consent or established exceptions; Order 45 Rule 6(2) does not authorize endorsement of a penal notice into a consent judgment where none was agreed; the proper course is enforcement by other execution remedies. Accordingly the application to endorse a penal notice is dismissed with costs.

Citation
SUIT NO. D-22-306-2009 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Loh Meng Keong; 1st Defendant: Sitrac Corporation Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: Syed Mustaffa bin Syed Abdullah Shahabuddin; 3rd Defendant: Puncak Kenangan (M) Sdn Bhd; 4th Defendant: Kelana Jati Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 November 2020
Case Number
SUIT NO. D-22-306-2009 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial (enforcement of Consent Judgment) / Interlocutory Application Under Enclosure 29 to Vary/endorse Penal Notice to Consent Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Penal Notice, Variation of Judgment, Functus Officio, Order 45 Rule 6(2) Rules of Court 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Property Law Consent Judgment Penal Notice Variation of Judgment Functus Officio Order 45 Rule 6(2) Rules of Court 2012

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loh Meng Keong

Plaintiff

Sitrac Corporation Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Syed Mustaffa bin Syed Abdullah Shahabuddin

2nd Defendant

Puncak Kenangan (M) Sdn Bhd

3rd Defendant

Kelana Jati Sdn Bhd

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial (enforcement of Consent Judgment) / Interlocutory Application Under Enclosure 29 to Vary/endorse Penal Notice to Consent Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may amend a perfected consent judgment to endorse a penal notice
  2. 2 Whether Order 45 Rule 6(2) Rules of Court 2012 permits insertion of time/penal provisions into an existing consent judgment
  3. 3 Whether committal proceedings are appropriate when compliance issues remain

Ratio Decidendi

The consent judgment was perfected and did not contain a penal notice; the court lacks jurisdiction to vary its terms or read words into it absent mutual consent or established exceptions; Order 45 Rule 6(2) does not authorize endorsement of a penal notice into a consent judgment where none was agreed; the proper course is enforcement by other execution remedies. Accordingly the application to endorse a penal notice is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.