HEKTAR JUARA SDN BHD TAM JAYA GROUP SDN BHD

HEKTAR JUARA SDN BHD TAM JAYA GROUP SDN BHD

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the defence and counterclaim and the JID were validly served at the Appellant's registered address rendering the JID regular; the Appellant failed to disclose an arguable defence on the merits; the purported arbitration clause was inapplicable or waived by the Appellant's conduct; therefore the setting‑aside application was rightly dismissed and the appeal is dismissed with costs (RM5,000).

Citation
BA-12A-64-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Second Defendant in Counterclaim: Hektar Juara Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent / Plaintiff in Counterclaim: Tam Jaya Group Sdn Bhd; Plaintiff in Original Suit / Co‑defendant in Counterclaim: EAH Engineering Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Case Number
BA-12A-64-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (appeal From Sessions Court) / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment in Default, Service of Process, Subcontract Payment Disputes, Variation Orders, Waiver of Arbitration, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Arbitration Law Construction Law Setting Aside Judgment in Default Service of Process Subcontract Payment Disputes Variation Orders +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hektar Juara Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant / Second Defendant in Counterclaim

Tam Jaya Group Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff in Counterclaim

EAH Engineering Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff in Original Suit / Co‑defendant in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (appeal From Sessions Court) / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judgment in Default (JID) was regularly entered and service was proper
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant disclosed a prima facie defence on the merits sufficient to set aside the JID
  3. 3 Whether an arbitration clause required referral to arbitration and whether it was waived

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the defence and counterclaim and the JID were validly served at the Appellant's registered address rendering the JID regular; the Appellant failed to disclose an arguable defence on the merits; the purported arbitration clause was inapplicable or waived by the Appellant's conduct; therefore the setting‑aside application was rightly dismissed and the appeal is dismissed with costs (RM5,000).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 payable by the Appellant subject to fi alokatur
  • Decision of the Sessions Court (Shah Alam) dated 29-7-2022 affirmed