SUPER GOLD REALTY (M) SDN. BHD. LIVINGSMILE SDN. BHD. (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI A & T DENTAL SDN. BHD.)

SUPER GOLD REALTY (M) SDN. BHD. LIVINGSMILE SDN. BHD. (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI A & T DENTAL SDN. BHD.)

The High Court refused to intervene: because the strike out application (Enclosure 41) was heard inter partes and decided on the merits, the Magistrate was functus officio once the Order and Judgment were perfected and the proper mode to challenge those determinations was by appeal, not by an application to set aside; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Citation
PA-11ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: SUPER GOLD REALTY (M) SDN BHD; Respondent/plaintiff: LIVINGSMILE SDN BHD (formerly A & T DENTAL SDN BHD)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 October 2024
Case Number
PA-11ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Set Aside Judgment, Unless Order, Order 34 Rules of Court 2012, Functus Officio, Strike Out, Pre Trial Directions
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Magistrates' Court Practice Set Aside Judgment Unless Order Order 34 Rules of Court 2012 Functus Officio Strike Out Pre Trial Directions

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

Parties

SUPER GOLD REALTY (M) SDN BHD

Appellant/defendant

LIVINGSMILE SDN BHD (formerly A & T DENTAL SDN BHD)

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an inter partes judgment can be set aside by the same court or must be challenged by appeal
  2. 2 Whether dismissal for non-compliance required an unless or peremptory order before striking out
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate was functus officio and thus lacked jurisdiction to set aside its earlier inter partes decision

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court refused to intervene: because the strike out application (Enclosure 41) was heard inter partes and decided on the merits, the Magistrate was functus officio once the Order and Judgment were perfected and the proper mode to challenge those determinations was by appeal, not by an application to set aside; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of RM3,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff