1, PILECON ENGINEERING BERHAD 2. TAN HOCK KENG 3. DUAL VEST (M) SDN BHD 4, DAN 1 YANG LAIN 1. MALAYSIAN TRUSTEES BERHAD 2. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 3. AFFIN BANK BERHAD 4. DAN 10 YANG LAIN

1, PILECON ENGINEERING BERHAD 2. TAN HOCK KENG 3. DUAL VEST (M) SDN BHD 4, DAN 1 YANG LAIN 1. MALAYSIAN TRUSTEES BERHAD 2. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 3. AFFIN BANK BERHAD 4. DAN 10 YANG LAIN

The 2019 consent judgment and Settlement Letters were properly drawn, final and non-negotiable with time expressly of the essence; the court is functus officio and lacks power to amend or vary the consent judgment in the circumstances presented; plaintiffs failed to establish equitable grounds (clean hands, non-wilful default, disproportionate harm) to grant relief from forfeiture; therefore the originating summons seeking amendment, extension or relief was dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.

Citation
24NCC-455-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: PILECON ENGINEERING BERHAD; Plaintiff: TAN HOCK KENG; Plaintiff: DUAL VEST (M) SDN BHD; Plaintiff: AWAL KELANA (M) SDN BHD; Defendant: MALAYSIAN TRUSTEES BERHAD; Defendant: MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD; Defendant: AFFIN BANK BERHAD; Defendant: AFFIN HWANG INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD; Defendant: ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD; Defendant: ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD; Defendant: AMBANK (M) BERHAD; Defendant: HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD; Defendant: HSBC BANK BERHAD; Defendant: PUBLIC BANK BERHAD; Defendant: RHB BANK BERHAD; Defendant: OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD; Defendant: CIMB BANK BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 May 2021
Case Number
24NCC-455-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Contracts Act / Originating Summons (commercial Division) / Judgment Originating Summons Dismissed
Outcome
Originating summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Variation of Consent Order, Relief From Forfeiture, Extension of Time, Functus Officio, Estoppel, Enforcement of Charges, COVID 19 Impact on Performance
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Equity Civil Procedure Property/land Law Trusts and Banking Law Consent Judgment Variation of Consent Order Relief From Forfeiture +5 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 8 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PILECON ENGINEERING BERHAD

Plaintiff

TAN HOCK KENG

Plaintiff

DUAL VEST (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

AWAL KELANA (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

MALAYSIAN TRUSTEES BERHAD

Defendant

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Defendant

AFFIN BANK BERHAD

Defendant

AFFIN HWANG INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD

Defendant

ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Defendant

ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD

Defendant

AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Defendant

HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD

Defendant

HSBC BANK BERHAD

Defendant

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

Defendant

RHB BANK BERHAD

Defendant

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Defendant

CIMB BANK BERHAD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contracts Act / Originating Summons (commercial Division) / Judgment Originating Summons Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may amend or vary a consent judgment once perfected
  2. 2 Whether the court may extend time for compliance with a final consent judgment under Order 3 Rule 5
  3. 3 Whether equitable relief from forfeiture should be granted to prevent sale/auction of charged properties

Ratio Decidendi

The 2019 consent judgment and Settlement Letters were properly drawn, final and non-negotiable with time expressly of the essence; the court is functus officio and lacks power to amend or vary the consent judgment in the circumstances presented; plaintiffs failed to establish equitable grounds (clean hands, non-wilful default, disproportionate harm) to grant relief from forfeiture; therefore the originating summons seeking amendment, extension or relief was dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.

Court Disposition

Originating summons dismissed

Orders

  • Originating summons dismissed
  • Costs of RM5,000 to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants