Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Merits of defence

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2026

LAMAN KEJORA SDN BHD 1. ) NBI MUTIARA RESOURCES 2. ) RIZAL BIN NGAH

Citation

TA-A52NCvC-10-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-A52NCvC-10-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Service by AR registered post to the defendants' last known address, evidenced by returned acknowledgement cards, established proper service; defendants failed to provide a credible explanation for the two‑year delay or rebut the prima facie proof of service and did not disclose any non‑sham meritorious defence on affidavit; accordingly the exercise of discretion to set aside the default judgment was refused and the application dismissed with costs of RM2500.
11 Dec 2024

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD LOW CHEE KONG

Citation

NA-A52NCvC-6-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-A52NCvC-6-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Default judgment was regularly obtained by valid substituted service; the defendant filed the application after an inordinate delay of over one year without satisfactory explanation; the defence asserted lacked evidential support and was not meritorious; accordingly the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed.
28 Oct 2024

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD 1. ) LIM SWEE KIM 2. ) TYE AH TE

Citation

MA-B52NCvC-18-06/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

MA-B52NCvC-18-06/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held service by prepaid AR registered post to the defendants' last known addresses was proven and the presumption of service under s.12 was not rebutted; defendants failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence supported by documentary evidence; accordingly the default judgment was regular and the application to set aside was dismissed with costs.
15 Aug 2023

TUN HAMDZAH BIN ISMAIL Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

NA-12ANCvC-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12ANCvC-3-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the default judgment was regular and valid (service was properly effected at the appellant's last known address and procedural rules were complied with), the appellant's delay of nearly three years in applying to set aside the judgment was inordinate and unexplained, and the appellant has no meritorious defence; therefore the Sessions Court's refusal to set aside the default judgment was proper and will not be disturbed on appeal.
21 Jul 2022

Sallehuddin bin Abdul Wahab Summer Crystal Properties Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

KB-B52C-1-03/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-B52C-1-03/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The default judgment dated 21.4.2022 was regularly obtained after the defendant failed to file a defence within ordered time and after the Court and the High Court refused extensions; the defendant failed to produce an affidavit of merits establishing a plausible defence or to demonstrate irregularity, therefore the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed.
26 Apr 2022

JEE JEE HOE (NO.K/P : 760424-07-5156) NG MEI OY (NO. K/P : 750801-07-5612)

Citation

PA-12ANCVC-37-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCVC-37-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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

JEE JEE HOE (NO.K/P : 760424-07-5156) NG MEI OY (NO. K/P : 750801-07-5612)

Citation

PA-12ANCVC-37-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCVC-37-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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%).
5 Oct 2021

EMEYUSREZAL BIN DAUD (NO. K/P: 800415-01-5577) 1. MUHAINI BINTI MUHAMAD (NO. K/P: 640913-03-5204) 2. ORANG-ORANG YANG MENIKMATI PENGGUNAAN HARTANAH YANG DIKENALI SEBAGAI GM 282 LOT 4033 MUKIM TIONG KG. TEBU, DARAH PENDEK, JAJAHAN KOTA BHARU

Citation

DA-22NCVC-30-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-30-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judgment in default was regularly obtained by proper service; the first defendant failed to produce or particularize any prima facie meritorious defence or credible evidence to rebut service; accordingly the application to set aside the JID is dismissed and the JID stands, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
24 Nov 2020

Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Merit Atlantic Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Ahmad Azman bin Ibrahim

Citation

BA-B52-14-03-2020 Encl21 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-B52-14-03-2020 Encl21 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application was dismissed because it was filed 27 days late beyond the mandatory 30‑day period under Order 42 r.13, no application for extension of time was made, credible evidence showed service of the default judgment, the defendants' explanations (PKP/non‑receipt) were not credible, and they failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence; therefore the application must be rejected with costs.