NORMALAR BINTI MUHAMMADAN v GHAZALI BIN MUHAMADAN

ba-22ncvc-284-07-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 21 January 2025 • BA-22NCvC-284-07/2024 • 9 min read
2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

Keputusan [39] Oleh yang demikian, permohonan Plaintif di Lampiran 7 dengan ini ditolak tetapi saya memerintahkan kos dibayar oleh Defendan dengan serta merta sebanyak RM1000 kepada Plaintif, tertakluk kepada fi alokator.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ba-22ncvc-284-07-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Permohonan merekodkan Penghakiman Ingkar Pembelaan - tuntutan Plf melibatkan prayers atau permohonan untuk perintah mengisytiharkan hak Plaintif keatas hartanah tersebut yang mana Defendan dikatakan telah melakukan pencerobohan - juga melibatkan dakwaan-dakwaan berunsur fitnah, kacau ganggu, tort conversion dan detinue dan juga gantirugi - bukan untuk satu jumlah yang tertentu (liquidated claim) - Plaintif gagal mematuhi kehendak peruntukan Kaedah 56 Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Guaman (Amalan dan Etiket) 1978 (KPG 1978) kerana tidak memberikan notis tujuh (7) hari sebelum memohon untuk perintah penghakiman ingkar - diputuskan bahawa Ketidak patuhan mana-mana kaedah atau peraturan yang diperuntukan tidak boleh mengatasi peruntukan atau keperluan dalam KKM - Sungguhpun begitu, setiap peguam harus mengambil berat dalam usaha untuk sentiasa mengikuti panduan etika yang digubal demi menjaga perhubungan profesionalisma antara peguam dalam pematuhan tatacara dan prosidur pengendalian kes-kes selagi tidak bertentangan dengan kehendak KKM - Mahkamah tetap mempunyai budi bicara dalam perihal perlanjutan masa bagi tujuan pematuhan pemfailan pliding mengikut KKM - Defendan dalam kes ini tidak menunjukan perlakuan dengan sengaja ingin melengahkan atau berniat untuk tidak mematuhi kehendak KKM dalam pemfailan pembelaan beliau. Ini berlaku dalam tempoh masa yang sudah dilanjutkan dengan persetujuan pihak-pihak. Malah pembelaan telah difailkan, walaupun lewat, sebelum tarikh pengurusan kes selanjutnya - Permohonan ditolak.

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Defamation Criminal Procedure

Judges (1)

Noor Hayati binti Haji Mat Delivered

Counsel (6)

Salleh Gopal Firm Syahrina Shahir Firm Ahmad Fakhri bin Abu Samah Counsel Plaintiff Aminruddin Salleh Counsel Defendant Jananee Gopal Counsel Defendant Noor Hazury bin Mohd Zubir Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

Ghazali bin Muhamadan Defendant Normalar binti Muhammadan Plaintiff

Case Significance

Illustrates the court's reluctance to enter judgment in default of defence on an unliquidated, contested claim — such as one seeking declarations over land and damages in trespass, defamation and conversion — preferring the interests of justice and a determination on the merits over technical non-compliance.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application to enter judgment in default of defence and the limits of that remedy where the claim is not for a fixed sum. The plaintiff and the defendant are half-siblings sharing a common father, and the dispute concerns land. The plaintiff had applied under Order 19 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 for leave to enter judgment in default of defence for the reliefs set out in the statement of claim. Those reliefs went well beyond a simple debt: they included a declaration of the plaintiff's rights over the property said to have been trespassed upon by the defendant, together with allegations of a defamatory character, nuisance, the torts of conversion and detinue, and damages. In other words, the claim was not for a certain liquidated sum.

The court weighed the plaintiff's application against the nature of the claim and the defendant's delay in filing a defence. It emphasised that an extension of time is a matter for the court's discretion, to be exercised judiciously on the facts of each case, and that the interests of justice must be given weight over technical non-compliance. Finding no prejudice to the plaintiff arising from the defendant's delay, and considering that the case was suitable to be decided on its merits, the court concluded that the parties should be allowed to proceed to a determination on the merits rather than have judgment entered by default on an unliquidated, disputed claim.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to enter judgment in default, gave further directions for the filing of pleadings, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs of RM1,000 immediately, subject to allocator. The judgment illustrates the court's reluctance to enter default judgment on a claim that is unliquidated and contested, preferring to let the substantive dispute be tried.

What did the plaintiff apply for?

The plaintiff, a half-sibling of the defendant, applied under Order 19 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 to enter judgment in default of defence for the reliefs in the statement of claim, which included declarations over land, and claims in trespass, defamation, nuisance, conversion and detinue plus damages.

Why did the court refuse default judgment?

The claim was not for a liquidated sum but for unliquidated, disputed relief; the court preferred the interests of justice over technical non-compliance, found no prejudice from the delay, and considered the case suitable to be decided on its merits.

What did the court order?

It dismissed the application to enter judgment in default, gave directions for the filing of pleadings, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs of RM1,000, subject to allocator.

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)
[2000] 2 CLJ 251 [2009] 4 CLJ 329

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-22ncvc-284-07-2024)