NICHOLAS TAN LEAP HAN DREAMBOLIC (M) SDN. BHD.

NICHOLAS TAN LEAP HAN DREAMBOLIC (M) SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff failed to prove service of the sealed default judgment such that the 30-day limitation did not operate against the defendant; nevertheless the default judgment was regularly obtained and the defendant failed to establish a bona fide meritorious defence—its challenges to authenticity and its asserted defences were afterthoughts and sham—therefore the application to set aside was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Citation
JA-A72NCvC-679-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas Tan Leap Han; Defendant: Dreambolic (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Case Number
JA-A72NCvC-679-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Magistrate Court Decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (order 13 R.8)
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside the default judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Process, Meritorious Defence, Extension of Time (o.3 R.5), Novation/sale of Property, Possession
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Landlord and Tenant Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Service of Process Meritorious Defence Extension of Time (o.3 R.5) Novation/sale of Property +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Tan Leap Han

Plaintiff

Dreambolic (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Magistrate Court Decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (order 13 R.8)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's application to set aside default judgment was time-barred or effected with inordinate delay
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment dated 28.06.2021 was regular or irregular
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has a meritorious defence to set aside a regular default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove service of the sealed default judgment such that the 30-day limitation did not operate against the defendant; nevertheless the default judgment was regularly obtained and the defendant failed to establish a bona fide meritorious defence—its challenges to authenticity and its asserted defences were afterthoughts and sham—therefore the application to set aside was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside the default judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs of RM1,000 awarded to Plaintiff