Blog

"It makes no difference that the AR card bore the signature of someone ostensibly on behalf of Material Handling and Engineering Sdn Bhd. No explanation was vouchsafed to this court as to why if this individual was not authorized to receive mail on behalf of the first defendant he had signed the AR card concerned. … Continue reading Malaysian Building Society Bhd v Lim Kheng Kim [1988] 3 MLJ 175 →

"I regret I find no merit in this argument of the first defendant. In the case of a locally incorporated company, the law allows for at least four modes of service of a writ against it, namely, by leaving a copy of it at the registered office, or by sending a copy of it by … Continue reading Mayban Finance Bhd v Umas Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 4 MLJ 276 →

"As it is undisputed that on 11 July 2019, the Respondent sent the cause papers via registered post, it is deemed good service.Hence, for the purpose of a body corporate, the date when the service is deemed to be effected is the date when the cause papers were sent via prepaid registered post to address … Continue reading Syarikat Muar Quarry Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1597 →

"... In the present case the guarantee contains a clause which enables the bank by producing a certificate of indebtedness by its officer to dispense with legal proof of the actual indebtedness of the respondents. Clause 19 provides thus "A certificate by an officer of the bank as to the money and liabilities for the … Continue reading Citibank NA v Ooi Boon Leong & Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 282 FC →

“Their Lordships must therefore turn to the evidence that was before the High Court on the hearing of the application, bearing in mind that if there appears to be any conflict of evidence which is not on the face of it implausible, such a conflict ought not to be disposed of on affidavit evidence only. … Continue reading Eng Mee Yong & Ors v Letchumanan [1979] 1 MLJ 212 PC →

[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] … Continue reading Goh Teng Whoo & Anor v. Ample Objectives Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 348 FC →

"[11] The above dictum establishes firmly the conclusive nature and extent of a certificate of indebtedness. A certificate of indebtedness operates in the field of adjectival law. It excuses the plaintiff from adducing proof of debt. Such a certificate shifts the burden onto the defendant to disprove the amount claim.•••[13] The certificate of indebtedness, exh … Continue reading Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying (trading as KH Trading) & Anor [2006] 2 MLJ 685 FC →

“... Thus, in Fira Development Sdn Bhd v Goldwin Sdn Bhd, Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) (as he then was) held that a defence on the merits meant merely raising only an arguable or triable issue, not unlike any O 14 cases and that a judgment in default was not a judgment on the merits. … Continue reading Hasil Bumi Perumahan Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 312 SC →

“[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 … Continue reading Goh Teng Whoo & Anor v. Ample Objectives Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 348 FC →

"[6] … The said judge should, when considering such application, first identify whether the judgment in default is a regular or irregular judgment. It is well settled that if the judgment is irregular then the respondent is entitled to have the judgment set aside ex debitio justitiae. If it is regularly obtained, then the principle … Continue reading Mirra Sdn Bhd v The Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd [2008]3 CLJ 273 →