LAMAN PESONA SDN. BHD. Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.

LAMAN PESONA SDN. BHD. Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.

Court balanced procedural requirements against substantive justice and concluded that, on the facts, the alleged non-compliance with A.45 k.3 KKM 2012 did not cause injustice sufficient to set aside the leave or the writ; applications to set aside (Lampiran 8, 11 and 122) were dismissed with costs and the writ of possession allowed to stand pending other proceedings.

Citation
CB-37WP-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action) / Defendant 1 (counterclaim) / Intervener: Group Seven Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (original Action) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (counterclaim) / Respondent to Application: Ivan Ong Kang Jun
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 September 2022
Case Number
CB-37WP-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Execution of Judgment / Possession / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Writ of Possession (applications Lampiran 8, 11 and 122)
Outcome
Applications in Lampiran 8, Lampiran 11 and Lampiran 122 dismissed
Legal Topics
Writ of Possession, Leave to Issue Writ, Service/notice to Persons in Occupation, Procedural Compliance Vs Substantive Justice, Stay Pending Appeal
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Property Law Writ of Possession Leave to Issue Writ Service/notice to Persons in Occupation Procedural Compliance Vs Substantive Justice Stay Pending Appeal

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 Action) / Defendant 1 (counterclaim) / Intervener

Laman Pesona Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (original Action) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Ivan Ong Kang Jun

Defendant (counterclaim) / Respondent to Application

Procedural Posture

Civil Execution of Judgment / Possession / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Writ of Possession (applications Lampiran 8, 11 and 122)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to issue a writ of possession was irregular for failure to give notice to persons in actual occupation under A.45 k.3 KKM 2012
  2. 2 Whether ex parte permission under A.46 KKM 2012 validated issuance without notice
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with procedural rules is fatal or remediable under A.1A KKM 2012

Ratio Decidendi

Court balanced procedural requirements against substantive justice and concluded that, on the facts, the alleged non-compliance with A.45 k.3 KKM 2012 did not cause injustice sufficient to set aside the leave or the writ; applications to set aside (Lampiran 8, 11 and 122) were dismissed with costs and the writ of possession allowed to stand pending other proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applications in Lampiran 8, Lampiran 11 and Lampiran 122 dismissed

Orders

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