GROUP SEVEN SDN BHD 1. ) LAMAN PESONA SDN BHD 2. ) Ivan Ong Kang Jun

GROUP SEVEN SDN BHD 1. ) LAMAN PESONA SDN BHD 2. ) Ivan Ong Kang Jun

The court held that the applicants failed to establish that the lack of notice or alleged procedural irregularity caused injustice warranting setting aside the leave and writ; balancing strict procedural compliance against justice, the court found the writ could be enforced and dismissed Lampiran 8, 11 and 122 with costs. The existence of a related appeal did not, without an order staying execution, prevent enforcement of the High Court judgment.

Citation
CB-22NCvC-11-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original); Defendant (counterclaim): Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (original); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (counterclaim): Ivan Ong Kang Jun
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 September 2022
Case Number
CB-22NCvC-11-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Possession/execution / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Writ of Possession / Intervention Applications
Outcome
Applications (Lampiran 8, Lampiran 11 and Lampiran 122) dismissed
Legal Topics
Writ of Possession, Leave to Issue Writ, Service of Notice to Persons in Occupation, Intervention, Effect of Appeal on Execution
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgment Property Law Writ of Possession Leave to Issue Writ Service of Notice to Persons in Occupation Intervention Effect of Appeal on Execution

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (original); Defendant (counterclaim)

Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (original); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Ivan Ong Kang Jun

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Possession/execution / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Writ of Possession / Intervention Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to issue writ of possession was irregular for failure to give notice to persons in actual occupation (A.45 k.3 KKM 2012)
  2. 2 Whether procedural non-compliance can be cured under A.1A KKM 2012
  3. 3 Whether a pending appeal to the Court of Appeal prevents execution absent a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to establish that the lack of notice or alleged procedural irregularity caused injustice warranting setting aside the leave and writ; balancing strict procedural compliance against justice, the court found the writ could be enforced and dismissed Lampiran 8, 11 and 122 with costs. The existence of a related appeal did not, without an order staying execution, prevent enforcement of the High Court judgment.

Court Disposition

Applications (Lampiran 8, Lampiran 11 and Lampiran 122) dismissed

Orders

  • Lampiran 8 dismissed with costs
  • Lampiran 11 dismissed with costs