ZAMRI BIN MOHAMAD 1. ) PERINTIS AMANAH BERHAD 2. ) THE RAIN MAKER MGMT SDN BHD

ZAMRI BIN MOHAMAD 1. ) PERINTIS AMANAH BERHAD 2. ) THE RAIN MAKER MGMT SDN BHD

The application to set aside the judgment was dismissed because the 1st Defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for non‑attendance (absence found deliberate), service of trial notices and documents was proper and acknowledged, the alleged defence lacked merit because the purported advisor appointment and instruction were fraudulent and funds were disbursed to the 2nd Defendant not the appointed advisor, and the 1st Defendant offered no adequate explanation for delay in applying; accordingly discretion to set aside was not exercised.

Citation
WA-22NCC-102-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: ZAMRI BIN MOHAMAD; 1st Defendant: PERINTIS AMANAH BERHAD; 2nd Defendant: THE RAIN MAKER MGMT SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 July 2024
Case Number
WA-22NCC-102-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Suit (trust/fraud) / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside Judgment After Trial (order 35 R.2)
Outcome
Application under Enclosure 116 dismissed; Enclosure 131 struck out as redundant
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment After Trial, Service of Process, Trustee Liability, Validity of Advisor Appointment, Delay and Prejudice
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Commercial Trusts Civil Procedure Fraud Setting Aside Judgment After Trial Service of Process Trustee Liability +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZAMRI BIN MOHAMAD

Plaintiff

PERINTIS AMANAH BERHAD

1st Defendant

THE RAIN MAKER MGMT SDN BHD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Suit (trust/fraud) / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside Judgment After Trial (order 35 R.2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment obtained after trial in the absence of the defendant should be set aside under Order 35 r.2 ROC
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant's absence was deliberate or due to accident/mistake
  3. 3 Whether there are real prospects of success on the merits for the 1st Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the judgment was dismissed because the 1st Defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for non‑attendance (absence found deliberate), service of trial notices and documents was proper and acknowledged, the alleged defence lacked merit because the purported advisor appointment and instruction were fraudulent and funds were disbursed to the 2nd Defendant not the appointed advisor, and the 1st Defendant offered no adequate explanation for delay in applying; accordingly discretion to set aside was not exercised.

Court Disposition

Application under Enclosure 116 dismissed; Enclosure 131 struck out as redundant

Orders

  • Enclosure 116 (application to set aside judgment dated 29.1.2024) dismissed with costs fixed at RM5,000.00 subject to payment of the allocator
  • Enclosure 131 (application to adduce further documents) struck out with no order as to costs