Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Itcouldbeproperiftheserverinformedthe
person to be served of the nature of the
Service of Writ documentandthrowsitdowninhispresence.
1. Personal Service**
BanqueRussevClark(1894)
The process server did not inform the
O.10R1(1) Defendant of the nature of the document
The writ of summons must be served whichwasgiventohiminanenvelope.Itwas
personallyoneachdefendantorbysending heldthattheservicewasinsufficient.
itbyprepaidARregisteredpostaddressed
tohislastknownaddress.
RoasevKempthone
And in so far as is practicable, the first
Adopted the principle in Thomsons and
attemptatservicemustbemadenotlater
BanqueRussescase.
than1month fromthedateofissueofthe
writ.
FarahFarhanaHassan
2. Substituted Service**
O.62R5(1) PracticeNote1/68
If, in the case of any document which is a)Twocallsshouldbemade.
required to be served personally on any b)Callsshouldbemadetodefendantresident,
person, it appears to the Court that it is permanentortemporary.Ifclaimisbusiness
impracticableforanyreasontoservethat related,tohisbusinessaddress,andifleftat
document personally on that person, the his address, itmustbe ina sealed envelope
Court may make an order in Form 133 for addressedtododefendant.
substitutedservice. c)Callsshouldbemadeonweekdaysandon
reasonablehours.
d)Eachcallshouldbemadeontwoseparate
O.62R5(2) days.
An application for an order for Substituted e)Secondcallshouldbemadebyappointment
service is made by way of notice of bylettersenttodefendantbyordinaryprepaid
application supported by an affidavit in post, giving not less than two clear days
Form 134 stating the facts on which the notice,enclosingacopyofthedocumenttobe
served and offering opportunity of making
applicationisfoundedandthereasonwhyitis
differentappointment.
impracticable to effect such personal
f) On keeping the appointment, the process
service. servershouldinquire whetherdefendanthad
receivedletterofappointment,andifstatedto
O.62R5(3) be away, should inquire whether the letters
hasbeenforwardtohim.
ASSofadocument,inrelationtowhichan
g) Affidavit in support of the application
orderismadeunderthisrule,iseffectedby
shoulddealwithallforegoingapplication.
takingsuchstepsasthe courtmaydirectto
bringthedocumenttothenoticeoftheperson
tobeserved. ReNirmalaa/pMuthiahSelvarajah
[1988]2MLJ616
Facts:
InstanceswhenSubstitutedserviceisrequired:
Theappellant appealed fromthedecisionof
Where the whereabouts of the
Defendantisnotknown. the senior assistant registrar for refusing to
Where the whereabouts of the makeanorderforsubstitutedservice ofa
defendantisknownbutthedefendantis bankruptcy notice on the grounds that the
not present to accept service of the requirementsofPracticeNoteNo.1of1968
writ. hadnotbeenmetwith.
Issue:Whetherthewhereaboutsoftheperson
tobeservedwasunknown.
Held:
PN 1/68 is not applicable where the
defendantswhereaboutsisnotknown.
TheaffidavitmustsatisfytheRegistrarthat
theapplicationismadebonafideandthatthe
FarahFarhanaHassan
method of substituted service will meet the
objectiveofservice.
SubstitutedServicegranted
O.11R4(1)
Modesofeffectingsubstitutedservice: Anapplicationforthegrantofleaveshallbe
Newspaperadvertisement supportedbyan affidavitinForm8 stating
By posting a copy of writ on the court that;
noticeboard the grounds on which the application is
By sending a copy of the writ to the made;
defendantslastknownaddress. the plaintiffs belief that he has a good
causeofaction;
the plaintiffs belief that he has a good
arguableclaim;
the country the defendant is or probably
maybefound
FarahFarhanaHassan
argued that the company had no office nor
agentinSingaporeandthechairmanhadno
O.11R4(2) control of the management of the company
Leavewouldnotbegrantedunlessproventhat businessinSingapore,andthechairmanhad
thecaseisa properoneforserviceoutside noauthoritytoaccepttheserviceofthewrit
jurisdiction. onbehalfofthedefendant.
ReBusfield(1816)
Generally, Courts exercise jurisdiction only
overthepersonwithintheterritoriallimitsof
theirjurisdictions.
BankBumiputraMalaysiaBhdvThe
InternationalTinCouncil&Anor InternationalCorporationLtdVBesser
[1987]2MLJ245 (1950)
ThecourtstatedthatjurisdictionunderO.11 Although a plaintiff is not as of right
wasexercisableatthecourtsdiscretionand entitledtoleavetoservethewritornoticeof
that before the court granted leave, the writ out of jurisdiction where an account is
plaintiff had to satisfy the court that the claimed,thecourthaspowerinthisdiscretion
actionwaswithinoneoftheparagraphunder underO.11R1(1)(e)oftheRulesofSupreme
O.11R1.(a)(m) Court,to grantleave,andwilldosointhe
propercircumstances.
a)Foreigndefendantwithinjurisdiction AminRasheedShippingvKuwait
ofthecourt Insurance(1983)
Sincethe jurisdictionconferredonthe court
Atmaram&SonsvEssaIndustriesLtd byO.11R1(1)(f)(iii)oftheRulesofSupreme
[1969]1MLJ44 Court was exorbitant, in that the English
Held: jurisdictionwasbeingsoughttobeforcedona
The service of a generally endorsed writ unwilling defendant and an English Court
whichhasservedonachairmanofaforeign wouldonlyrecognizethataforeigncourthad
companywhilehewasonatemporaryvisitto thesamejurisdictionifatreatyconferringit
Singaporewasvalidalthoughthedefendantin was in existence, the court would normally
anapplicationtosetasidetheserviceofthe exerciseitsdiscretionunderO.11R4(2)by
writ after entering conditional appearance refusingtograntaplaintiffleavetoservethe
FarahFarhanaHassan
proceedings out of jurisdiction unless he
satisfiedthecourtthatjusticecouldnotbe
obtained with excessive cost, delay or
inconvenience. The plaintiffs has failed to
satisfy the judge that there were sufficient
groundstocompelthedefendantstosubmitto
thejurisdictionoftheEnglishcourtsandthe
courtwouldnotinterferewiththeexerciseof
thejudgesdiscretionagainsttheplaintiff.
LeeBoonTatt&OrsvTakhdirTrading
SdnBhd[1984]2MLJ341
Stated:
It was not the legislative intention to limit
service only at the registered office. O.62
R4(1)(b) says if there be more offices than
one, then service may be effected at the
FarahFarhanaHassan
principal office which should mean the
principalplaceofbusinessofthecorporation.
SummitCompany(M)SdnBhdv
NokkoProducts(M)SdnBhd[1985]1
MLJ69
Held:
The effective date of the change of the
registeredaddressisthedateofthelodgment
ofthenoticetotheRegistrarofCompanies.
Inthiscase,theappellantservedawritonJuly
1st 1982 on the respondent company by
leaving it at a place believing it to be its
registeredoffice.
However,therespondenthadon20thFebruary
1982lodgedwiththeRegistrarnotificationof
changeofaddress.However,thenotification
was not entered into register until 24th
September1982.
The appellants obtained default in judgment
andwentforexecution.Therespondentwas
successfulinsettingasidethejudgment.
5. Other Services
YeoHiapSengvAustralianFoodCorp
Thedefendantfailedtonotifytheregistrarthe 10R1(2)ROC2012
change of the registered address. The court O10R1(3)ROC2012
heldthattheserviceaspertheaddressatthe
O10 R 4 ROC 2012 Immovable
registrywasgood.
property
O11 R 5 (3) ROC 2012 Leave
outsidejurisdiction
O73 R3 and Sec.26Government
Proceedings Act 1956 Service on
theGovernment
O76 R 14 ROC 2012 Service on
personsunderdisability
O77 R3 ROC 2012 Service on
partners
FarahFarhanaHassan