1. ) Mohd Noor Amin Bin Mohd Noor Khan 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Mohamed Shihab Bin Kunhi Mohamed 4. ) Daljeet Singh A/l Kapur Singh v XXXX

Case Significance

A useful statement of the approach to granting leave to execute a judgment more than six years old under Order 46 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012, and of appellate restraint in reviewing a first-instance court's exercise of that discretion.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against the grant of leave to execute a judgment under Order 46 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012, which requires a party to obtain the court's leave before executing on a judgment that is more than six years old. The respondent had obtained a final judgment against the appellants in 2010 in connection with revolving project loan facilities, and had subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with them. Over the following years there had been extensive correspondence between the parties. When the respondent later sought leave to execute the 2010 judgment, the appellants resisted, arguing chiefly that the judgment had been superseded by the settlement agreement, so that it was the agreement, and not the judgment, that governed the parties' relationship, and that leave to execute the old judgment should not be granted. The High Court granted leave, and the appellants appealed. The Court of Appeal restated the principles applicable to the grant of leave to execute an aged judgment, including that an action on a judgment is subject to limitation, and was satisfied that the action on this judgment was not yet time-barred. It emphasised that where a discretion of this kind is conferred on a court of first instance, an appellate court will interfere only if the discretion was exercised injudiciously or on an erroneous view of the law. Finding that the High Court judge had correctly directed himself on the law and had given cogent reasons for granting leave — including in his treatment of the argument that the settlement agreement had displaced the judgment — the court held that there was no basis for appellate intervention. It accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs of RM10,000. The judgment is a useful statement of the approach to leave to execute a judgment more than six years old and of appellate restraint in reviewing a discretionary decision.