1. ) SIMREN SINGH A/L SUNDER SINGH 2. ) JJCM REALTY SDN BHD MAYA DECOR (M) SDN BHD

1. ) SIMREN SINGH A/L SUNDER SINGH 2. ) JJCM REALTY SDN BHD MAYA DECOR (M) SDN BHD

Because the withdrawal order was not served prior to the 18 July 2022 case management date, former counsel remained counsel of record; the absence of counsel and defendants and their failure to comply with court directions justified the recording of the default judgment; defendants lacked a meritorious defence to the RM750,000 claim; therefore the set aside application and appeal fail.

Citation
WA-12ANCC-144-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Simren Singh a/l Sunder Singh; Appellant: JJCM Realty Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Maya Decor (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 July 2023
Case Number
WA-12ANCC-144-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Default Judgment / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Withdrawal of Counsel, Service of Court Orders, Cheques, Enforcement of Debt
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Banking and Finance Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Withdrawal of Counsel Service of Court Orders Cheques +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simren Singh a/l Sunder Singh

Appellant

JJCM Realty Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Maya Decor (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Default Judgment / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the withdrawal order obtained by former counsel had effect prior to being served on parties
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment recorded on 18 July 2022 was properly entered
  3. 3 Whether the defendants demonstrated a meritorious defence to the plaintiff's claim of RM750,000

Ratio Decidendi

Because the withdrawal order was not served prior to the 18 July 2022 case management date, former counsel remained counsel of record; the absence of counsel and defendants and their failure to comply with court directions justified the recording of the default judgment; defendants lacked a meritorious defence to the RM750,000 claim; therefore the set aside application and appeal fail.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Original default judgment recorded on 18 July 2022 affirmed