Pengurusan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd v Mines Resort Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi)

Case Significance

Confirms that a perfected consent judgment is contractual and binding and can only be challenged by a fresh action, not set aside on substantive grounds under Order 42 rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an attempt by a company in liquidation to set aside a perfected consent judgment by way of an interlocutory application in the same action. The plaintiff, Pengurusan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd, had obtained a consent judgment against the defendant, Mines Resort Sdn Bhd (in liquidation), entered before the court with the consent of both parties through their respective solicitors. The defendant applied to set it aside, contending among other things that the liquidator had not consented, that compliance would breach statutory duties and the pari passu principle under the Companies Act 2016, that natural justice had been denied, and that Order 42 rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012 empowered the court to set the judgment aside. The central legal question was whether a perfected consent judgment can be set aside on such substantive grounds by an interlocutory application, or whether a fresh action is required. The court held that a consent judgment is contractual in nature and binding, and that Order 42 rule 13 does not confer jurisdiction to set aside a perfected consent judgment on substantive grounds; that rule is confined to correcting clerical mistakes or accidental omissions under the slip rule. Relying on the Federal Court's decision in Hock Hua Bank Bhd v Sahari Bin Murid, the court reasoned that once a judgment is regularly obtained and entered, the court has no power on an application in the same action to alter, vary or set it aside, save under the slip rule or where entered by default or in a party's absence. The court also found that the defendant had shown no breach of the liquidator's duties and that its delay and conduct were material: having failed to honour its agreed obligations, it sought to set the judgment aside only later, which the court regarded as an afterthought with no satisfactory explanation. The application was dismissed. The judgment is a clear statement that a perfected consent judgment must be challenged by a fresh action, not reopened under Order 42 rule 13.