“[36] In the present case, the approach taken by both courts below was that posting of the writ by AR registered post was conclusive proof of service, thus leaving no room for the appellants to discharge their burden of proving that they did not receive the writ, in rebuttal of the presumption under s. 12 of the Interpretation Acts.
[37] We have to say with regret that this is a wrong approach which had occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice to the appellants in that they had lost the chance of having the JID set aside ex debito justitiae on the ground that they were irregularly obtained for failure of service. The error is serious enough to vitiate the judgments entered against them.”
Goh Teng Whoo & Anor v. Ample Objectives Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 348 FC
Goh Teng Whoo & Anor v. Ample Objectives Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 348 FC
