17 Oct 2025
The application to amend the substituted judgment was dismissed because the issue of Defendant 1's liability to pay jointly with Technochase Sdn Bhd had been finally decided on the merits and on appeal, and is therefore barred by res judicata and estoppel; permitting the amendment would constitute an abuse of process and undermine finality of judgment.
7 Jul 2025
No clerical mistake or slip within the meaning of Order 20 r 11 was shown; the contention amounted to an attempt to re‑open or vary the substantive terms of a perfected consent judgment. The Sessions Court therefore did not err in finding it was functus officio for the purpose of varying the consent judgment and in refusing the amendment. Absent evidence of a slip or vitiating factors justifying setting aside the consent judgment, the appeal must be dismissed.
21 Mar 2024
The application to amend was dismissed because Order 20 Rule 11 is confined to correcting clerical errors or accidental slips and cannot be used to add new substantive terms that would alter the allocation of proceeds established by the original judgment.
10 Nov 2023
The drawn and sealed judgment did not fully and accurately reflect the orders actually pronounced; such discrepancies are correctable under Order 20 r.11 (and cognizable under the Court's inherent jurisdiction) therefore the Amendment Application to amend the judgment to accord with the pronouncement is allowed; delay was not inordinate and did not bar relief; costs were denied to both parties.
16 Nov 2022
The application to amend (Enclosure 55) is dismissed because the applicant failed to annex the proposed amendment to the application (a fatal procedural defect not curable under the Rules of Court 2012) and because the court cannot allow a collateral attack on a final judgment after the appellant's rights of appeal have been exhausted (functus officio/res judicata); application dismissed with costs RM5,000.00.
26 Apr 2022
The default judgment was regularly obtained because service complied with the contractual address and Rules of Court (registered post, unclaimed AR and substituted service); the defendant failed to give reasonable prompt explanation for delay and did not disclose a prima facie meritorious defence; the interest rate error (8%) does not vitiate the judgment and is amendable (reduceable to 5% by amendment), therefore the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed and the judgment is maintained, with costs to respondent.
26 Apr 2022
Service of the writ was regular (registered post, AR evidence 'Not Claimed', substituted service by advertisement and contract clause permitting service at last known address), the appellant provided no reasonable explanation for delay and failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence; therefore the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed. The error in the interest rate is correctable by amendment and the judgment is upheld subject to amendment of interest to the rate permitted (reduction to 5%).
24 May 2021
DA-12A-3-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)