ONG MEI LEAN [No. Kad Pengenalan: 600319086002] LOH SIM SENG [No. Kad Pengenalan: 621212015127]

ONG MEI LEAN [No. Kad Pengenalan: 600319086002] LOH SIM SENG [No. Kad Pengenalan: 621212015127]

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had jurisdiction under O3 r5 read with O42 r6(1), O45 r6(1) and O92 r4 to grant an extension of time to give effect to a consent order; such an extension to facilitate completion of the settlement did not alter, vary or amend the substantive terms of the consent order, functus officio and absence of an express liberty to apply did not bar the relief, and the respondent was not the author of the delay so the liquidated damages clause did not apply in the circumstances.

Citation
B-02(IM)(NCC)-372-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Ong Mei Lean; Respondent: Loh Sim Seng; 1st Respondent: Little Cravings Sdn Bhd
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 July 2021
Case Number
B-02(IM)(NCC)-372-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Arising From Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Court of Appeal Disposition on Appeal From High Court (challenge to High Court's Grant of Extension of Time Under Consent Order)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Extension of Time, Functus Officio, Liquidated Damages, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Consent Order Extension of Time Functus Officio Liquidated Damages Inherent Jurisdiction

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ong Mei Lean

Appellant

Loh Sim Seng

Respondent

Little Cravings Sdn Bhd

1st Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Arising From Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Court of Appeal Disposition on Appeal From High Court (challenge to High Court's Grant of Extension of Time Under Consent Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Order 3 rule 5 Rules of Court 2012 to extend time to comply with a consent order
  2. 2 Whether granting the extension amounted to varying or amending the consent order
  3. 3 Whether the rule of functus officio or absence of an express liberty to apply prevented the Court from granting ancillary relief to give effect to the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had jurisdiction under O3 r5 read with O42 r6(1), O45 r6(1) and O92 r4 to grant an extension of time to give effect to a consent order; such an extension to facilitate completion of the settlement did not alter, vary or amend the substantive terms of the consent order, functus officio and absence of an express liberty to apply did not bar the relief, and the respondent was not the author of the delay so the liquidated damages clause did not apply in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Respondent in the sum of RM20000.00 subject to allocatur