[9] Obviously, the intention behind the provision [Aturan 10 & 13 KKM 2012] is to ensure that the action has been brought to the knowledge of the defendant or someone authorised by him to accept service of the writ before the court takes the drastic step of sealing the JID with all the attendant consequences.
[10] It must be remembered that this mode of service, although allowed by the law, has the potential to cause hardship to unsuspecting defendants. It is therefore necessary for the court to exercise caution before entering JID against a party who fails to enter appearance. The object of the provision will be defeated if the court were to mechanically accept without question the plaintiff’s assertion that the writ has been served on the defendant.
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
