PUBLIC BANK BERHAD (6463-H) 1. TAN TECK SENG JASON 2. TAN KEAT SENG KITSON

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD (6463-H) 1. TAN TECK SENG JASON 2. TAN KEAT SENG KITSON

The appeal is allowed because the JID was regularly obtained: the defendants failed to give actual notice of address change as required by the loan agreement and PDPA procedures (biometric verification and statutory 21‑day processing) were lawfully observed, service on the registered address was valid, the defendants filed to set aside out of time without satisfactory explanation, and they did not disclose an arguable defence to undermine the JID; costs awarded to the bank.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-142-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Public Bank Berhad (6463-H); Respondent / Defendant: Tan Teck Seng Jason; Respondent / Defendant: Tan Keat Seng Kitson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 June 2020
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-142-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sessions Court Order Setting Aside Judgment in Default
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the Sessions Court dated 2 December 2019 setting aside the JID set aside; judgment in default dated 23 July 2018 reinstated
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment in Default, Service of Process, Change of Address, Personal Data Protection Act Compliance, Public Auction of Charged Property, Delay and Extension of Time, Affidavit of Merits
Source Language
Malay/English
Banking Law Civil Procedure Data Protection Law Contract Law Property Law Setting Aside Judgment in Default Service of Process Change of Address +4 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Bank Berhad (6463-H)

Appellant / Plaintiff

Tan Teck Seng Jason

Respondent / Defendant

Tan Keat Seng Kitson

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sessions Court Order Setting Aside Judgment in Default

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in default (JID) was regularly obtained
  2. 2 Whether service was valid given email notification and alleged change of address under the Loan Agreement and PDPA
  3. 3 Whether the defendants satisfactorily explained the delay in applying to set aside the JID

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the JID was regularly obtained: the defendants failed to give actual notice of address change as required by the loan agreement and PDPA procedures (biometric verification and statutory 21‑day processing) were lawfully observed, service on the registered address was valid, the defendants filed to set aside out of time without satisfactory explanation, and they did not disclose an arguable defence to undermine the JID; costs awarded to the bank.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the Sessions Court dated 2 December 2019 setting aside the JID set aside; judgment in default dated 23 July 2018 reinstated

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of the Sessions Court dated 2 December 2019 set aside