Halim Bin Saad Chan Yok Peng

Halim Bin Saad Chan Yok Peng

Order 42 r.13 could not be used to set aside an inter partes summary judgment obtained after hearing on the merits; the High Court was functus officio and the defendant's late change of case, after admitting liability and failing to respond to demands, amounted to afterthoughts that did not amount to nullity or equitable fraud; the application was barred by res judicata and properly dismissed; appeal to Court of Appeal was the correct remedy for any fresh evidence.

Citation
W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2277-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Halim bin Saad; Respondent (plaintiff): Chan Yok Peng
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Case Number
W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2277-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (challenge to Setting Aside Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Res Judicata, Functus Officio, Locus Standi, Equitable Fraud, Fresh Evidence, Amendment of Defence
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Summary Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Res Judicata Functus Officio Locus Standi +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halim bin Saad

Appellant (defendant)

Chan Yok Peng

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (challenge to Setting Aside Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 42 r.13 ROC permits setting aside an inter partes judgment obtained after hearing on merits
  2. 2 Whether the judgment was a nullity due to suppression/manipulation or equitable fraud
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's late change of case and newly relied documents constitute fresh evidence justifying setting aside

Ratio Decidendi

Order 42 r.13 could not be used to set aside an inter partes summary judgment obtained after hearing on the merits; the High Court was functus officio and the defendant's late change of case, after admitting liability and failing to respond to demands, amounted to afterthoughts that did not amount to nullity or equitable fraud; the application was barred by res judicata and properly dismissed; appeal to Court of Appeal was the correct remedy for any fresh evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of RM10000.00 awarded to Respondent (subject to allocator)