XXXX v XXXX

wa-22ncc-364-10-2016 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 5 March 2025 • WA-22NCC-364-10/2016

Catchwords

Application for leave to execute Judgment after 6 years-The relevant rules applicable when a judgment creditor applies to court to enforce a judgment or order where six years or more have lapsed since the date of the judgment or order are Order 46 rule 2 read with Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012-Leave to execute a judgment will not be granted when there is no longer any pending judgment or order to enforce as the same has been superseded or extinguished by a settlement agreement between parties-The court under Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 will grant leave to execute Judgment after 6 years if the judgment creditor has in his supporting affidavit-identified the judgment or order to which the application relates and, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money, stating the amount originally due thereunder and the amount due thereunder at the date of the application; and-where the case falls within rule 2(1)(a), state the reasons for the delay in enforcing the judgment or order-What is sufficient reason for the delay in enforcing a judgment or order? Cases have held that there is sufficient reason for the delay where the delay in enforcing the judgment or order-is due to negotiations for settlement-is due to a subsequent breach of a settlement by instalments scheme by the judgment debtor-It is surely not in the public interest to insist the Judgment creditor proceed to make the guarantors bankrupts while the 1st defendant is paying the debt by instalments-

Practice Areas

Application for leave to execute Judgment after 6 years-The relevant rules applicable when a judgment creditor applies to court to enforce a judgment or order where six years or more have lapsed since the date of the judgment or order are Order 46 rule 2 read with Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012-Leave to execute a judgment will not be granted when there is no longer any pending judgment or order to enforce as the same has been superseded or extinguished by a settlement agreement between parties-The court under Order 46 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 will grant leave to execute Judgment after 6 years if the judgment creditor has in his supporting affidavit-identified the judgment or order to which the application relates and, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money, stating the amount originally due thereunder and the amount due thereunder at the date of the application; and-where the case falls within rule 2(1)(a), state the reasons for the delay in enforcing the judgment or order-What is sufficient reason for the delay in enforcing a judgment or order? Cases have held that there is sufficient reason for the delay where the delay in enforcing the judgment or order-is due to negotiations for settlement-is due to a subsequent breach of a settlement by instalments scheme by the judgment debtor-It is surely not in the public interest to insist the Judgment creditor proceed to make the guarantors bankrupts while the 1st defendant is paying the debt by instalments-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (2)

Xxxx Defendant Xxxx Plaintiff

Case Significance

XXXX v XXXX is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 5, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-364-10-2016). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of XXXX v XXXX?

XXXX v XXXX is a High Court decision dated March 5, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.