ANSWER SHEET Student ID 1161102265 Subject Code UCV4612 Section / Group L1 Lecturer Name Mr. Hafiz Page10 | 12 QUESTION 4A (a)(i) The issue in the scenario is whether the application for summary judgment may be heard by the Court. The first preliminary requirement of applying for Summary Judgment can be observed in Seah FJ in National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd, the preliminary requirements to be satisfied before a plaintiff or defendant in a counterclaim can obtsin summary judgment are, defendant must have entered appearance, the statement of claim must have been served on the defendant, and the affidavit must comply with the requirements of O.14 r2. Next, is the process of application and service is under Order 14 of the ROC 2012. The plaintiff must apply by Notice of Application supported by affidavit, which must be served to the defendant within 14 dys from the date of the sealed notice. The affidavit is described as a sworn statement made by the deponent which explains and justifies that there are no triable issues to be decided on in court, thus justifying the application for summary judgment. There are two prerequisites for filing for a summary judgment, which is the writ and statement of claim have been filed and served to the defendant, the defendant has entered appearance and the plaintiff has filed a Notice of Application for summary judgment supported by an affidavit. This should be filed before defence is entered into by the defendant. Once these procedural reuqirements have been met by the plaintiff, then the Court with its discretion may hear the proceedings for summary judgment. (ii) The crux of the scope of a hearing for summary judgment proceedings is the plaintiff‟s contention that there are no triable issues to be heard, rendering a summary judgment. The Defendant, on the other hand must show in his counter affidavit that there is an issue in question or dispute that has to be tried, that is and there is a substantial question of fact which ought to be tried. In Appaduray v Ananda, where the case involved an action for trespass, the court held that the dispute in boundaries of property raised by D required evidence of a survey report. This was a triable issue and thus plaintiff‟s application for SJ was dismised
ANSWER SHEET Student ID 1161102265 Subject Code UCV4612 Section / Group L1 Lecturer Name Mr. Hafiz Page11 | 12 In the hearing process, the underlying philosophy of Order 14 provision is to prevent a plaintiff who is clearly entitled to the money from being delayed his judgement where there is no fairly arguable or reasonable defence to the claim, either in law or the facts. The defendant should be given the opportunity to defend against the claim where the court is satisfied from certain factual features of the issues raised, that there are certain circumstances that ought to be investigated at trial.