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 balanced strict procedural compliance against substantive justice under A.1A KKM 2012 and found the failure to give the notices required by A.45 k.3 did not produce such prejudice as to invalidate the leave or stall enforcement; absence of a stay of execution under s.73 meant the underlying judgment remained executable. Consequently the interlocutory applications to set aside the writ (Lampiran 8, 11 and 122) were dismissed with costs.

Citation
CB-22NCvC-11-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action): Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (original Action): Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.; Plaintiff (counterclaim): Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant 1 (counterclaim): Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant 2 (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 Claim and Execution Application / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Writ of Possession (lampiran 8, 11 and 122)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Writ of Possession, Service of Notice to Persons in Actual Occupation, Leave to Issue Writ, Kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, Stay of Execution
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Land and Property Writ of Possession Service of Notice to Persons in Actual Occupation Leave to Issue Writ Kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Stay of 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (original Action)

Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (original Action)

Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant 1 (counterclaim)

Ivan Ong Kang Jun

Defendant 2 (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim and Execution Application / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Writ of Possession (lampiran 8, 11 and 122)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to issue a writ of possession was irregular due to failure to give notice to persons in actual occupation pursuant to A.45 k.3 KKM 2012
  2. 2 Whether ex parte permission under A.46 KKM 2012 validates issuance of writ without prior notice
  3. 3 Whether technical non-compliance with procedural rules can be cured by A.1A KKM 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The court balanced strict procedural compliance against substantive justice under A.1A KKM 2012 and found the failure to give the notices required by A.45 k.3 did not produce such prejudice as to invalidate the leave or stall enforcement; absence of a stay of execution under s.73 meant the underlying judgment remained executable. Consequently the interlocutory applications to set aside the writ (Lampiran 8, 11 and 122) were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

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