“[8] Where documents are served by post, there is a rebuttable presumption of law under section 12 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 that service of the document has been effected in the ordinary course of postage. To my mind, the presumption of service is obviously necessitated by the fact that service was not personal.
.
.
[11] I find that service of the writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendant was done in accordance with Order 62 rule 4(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012. Applying the presumption of service under section 12 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, I find that the writ of summons and statement of claim have been served at the time when they would have been delivered in the ordinary course of postage. I also find that the defendant has not provided any cause to the contrary to rebut the statutory presumption of service. If the writ of summons and statement of claim was sent by A.R. registered post and the A.R. card is returned with the endorsement “not claimed”, “return to sender” or any other endorsement showing the fact of non-delivery or the A.R. card was acknowledged by or on behalf of someone other than the defendant, that on my mind would be sufficient to constitute a cause to the contrary to rebut the presumption of service under section 12 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. However, since the writ of summons and statement of claim were only sent by registered post without any A.R. card, proof of posting alone is sufficient…”
Clarion (Malaysia) Sendirian Berhad v Permintex Sanko Technologies Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 401
Clarion (Malaysia) Sendirian Berhad v Permintex Sanko Technologies Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 401
