WWF CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN. BHD. v KIM MARCELLUS A/L K.M. MATTHEWS
Catchwords
There are two (2) appeals before the court arising from two (2) interlocutory matters dealt with by the Sessions Court. Due to the interconnected nature of both appeals, they are heard together. In Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCvC-183-10/2024 ("Appeal 183"), the plaintiff (appellant herein) is appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in allowing the defendant (respondent herein) to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 18 June 2024 under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC"). Meanwhile, in Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCvC-185-10/2024 ("Appeal 185"), the plaintiff is appealing the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who dismissed its application for judgment in default of defence. The court finds that not only was there no compliance with the court's directions regarding such filing of the affidavit in reply, but there was no proper application to the Sessions Court for an extension of time made by the plaintiff. The also court finds that the plaintiff's action amounting to a multiplicity of proceedings. Based on the above findings, Appeal 183 and Appeal 185 are dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 each, subject to allocatur.
Practice Areas
There are two (2) appeals before the court arising from two (2) interlocutory matters dealt with by the Sessions Court. Due to the interconnected nature of both appeals, they are heard together. In Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCvC-183-10/2024 ("Appeal 183"), the plaintiff (appellant herein) is appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in allowing the defendant (respondent herein) to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 18 June 2024 under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC"). Meanwhile, in Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCvC-185-10/2024 ("Appeal 185"), the plaintiff is appealing the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who dismissed its application for judgment in default of defence. The court finds that not only was there no compliance with the court's directions regarding such filing of the affidavit in reply, but there was no proper application to the Sessions Court for an extension of time made by the plaintiff. The also court finds that the plaintiff's action amounting to a multiplicity of proceedings. Based on the above findings, Appeal 183 and Appeal 185 are dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 each, subject to allocatur.
Case Significance
WWF CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN. BHD. v KIM MARCELLUS A/L K.M. MATTHEWS is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated May 12, 2025 (citation: wa-12ancvc-183-10-2024). The case was decided by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan.
Key issues: There are two (2) appeals before the court arising from two (2) interlocutory matters dealt with by the Sessions Court. Due to the interconnected nature of both appeals, they are heard together..
What was the outcome of WWF CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN. BHD. v KIM MARCELLUS A/L K.M. MATTHEWS?
WWF CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN. BHD. v KIM MARCELLUS A/L K.M. MATTHEWS is a High Court decision dated May 12, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan. See the full judgment for details.