Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heights Condominium A
Catchwords
[1] The Appellant files this application under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 25). [2] This Court is persuaded by the submissions of the Respondent that the Appellant has failed to provide a justified reason to answer the Preliminary Objection by the Respondent. The omission and failure to comply with the ROC cannot override the mandatory requirement. The reason given in paragraph 10.2 of the Appellant's Affidavit Sokongan (Encl. 26) is a mere contention that because the Respondent's solicitor has applied for the Grounds of Judgment (for the Respondent's Appeal in another appeal for the same action at the Magistrates Court), therefore action has been taken by the Plaintiff's solicitor to obtain the Grounds of Judgment. [3] The conduct of the Appellant to disregard Order 55 rule 3(5) of the ROC, the omission and failure to comply with the ROC, cannot override the mandatory requirement to strictly adhere to the provisions of Order 55 of the ROC. [4] Based on the above deliberations, Enclosure 25 is dismissed with costs. The Preliminary Objection by the Respondent is allowed. In the light of this, since there is no appeal proper before this court, this appeal is therefore struck off.
Practice Areas
1 The Appellant files this application under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 25). 2 This Court is persuaded by the submissions of the Respondent that the Appellant has failed to provide a justified reason to answer the Preliminary Objection by the Respondent. The omission and failure to comply with the ROC cannot override the mandatory requirement. The reason given in paragraph 10.2 of the Appellant's Affidavit Sokongan (Encl. 26) is a mere contention that because the Respondent's solicitor has applied for the Grounds of Judgment (for the Respondent's Appeal in another appeal for the same action at the Magistrates Court), therefore action has been taken by the Plaintiff's solicitor to obtain the Grounds of Judgment. 3 The conduct of the Appellant to disregard Order 55 rule 3(5) of the ROC, the omission and failure to comply with the ROC, cannot override the mandatory requirement to strictly adhere to the provisions of Order 55 of the ROC. 4 Based on the above deliberations, Enclosure 25 is dismissed with costs. The Preliminary Objection by the Respondent is allowed. In the light of this, since there is no appeal proper before this court, this appeal is therefore struck off.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heig... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated May 8, 2025 (citation: wa-11bncvc-12-03-2024). The case was decided by Suzana binti Muhamad Said.
Key issues: [1] The Appellant files this application under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 25)..
What was the outcome of Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heig...?
Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Pandan Heig... is a High Court decision dated May 8, 2025. The case was heard by Suzana binti Muhamad Said. See the full judgment for details.