PASTPRESENTFUTURE SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd) MFI MONEY SDN BHD

PASTPRESENTFUTURE SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd) MFI MONEY SDN BHD

Because the Defendant failed to file an appearance and defence within the prescribed time, and the Defendant's application for extension of time was dismissed and affirmed on appeal, Order 19 r.7 mandates that the court enter judgment in default of defence; therefore the application is allowed and judgment in default is entered against the Defendant.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-34-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Pastpresentfuture Sdn Bhd (formerly Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd); Defendant: MFI Money Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 July 2024
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-34-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Judgment in Default of Defence
Outcome
Application allowed; judgment in default of defence entered against the Defendant; costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Extension of Time, Rules of Court 2012, Order 19 Rule 7
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Default Judgment Extension of Time Rules of Court 2012 Order 19 Rule 7

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pastpresentfuture Sdn Bhd (formerly Poly Ritz Development Sdn Bhd)

Plaintiff

MFI Money Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Judgment in Default of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judgment in default of defence must be entered where defendant failed to file appearance or defence within time
  2. 2 Whether the court retains discretion to refuse judgment in default where defendant alleges merits in proposed defence after an application for extension of time has been dismissed
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of an extension application (and its affirmation on appeal) precludes consideration of the substance of the proposed defence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Defendant failed to file an appearance and defence within the prescribed time, and the Defendant's application for extension of time was dismissed and affirmed on appeal, Order 19 r.7 mandates that the court enter judgment in default of defence; therefore the application is allowed and judgment in default is entered against the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; judgment in default of defence entered against the Defendant; costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment in default of defence entered against MFI Money Sdn Bhd pursuant to Order 19 r.7, Rules of Court 2012
  • Costs to the Plaintiff