Professional Documents
Culture Documents
O.26 A SCR
Application
O.26A r 2 (1) SCR
An application under rule 1 must be made by
notice in Form 65 ( Notice of Application)
supported by an affidavit in Form 75A
verifying the facts on which the claim, or the
part of a claim to which the application relates
is based and stating in the deponents belief
ther is no defence to that claim or part, as the
case may be, or no defence except as to the
amount of any damages claimed.
Questions
1. When should judgment be given?
2. What should the defendant do to
stop or prevent the court from
giving the judgment?
3. What is the procedure that the
defendant has to follow?
Test
Whether the defendant has raised
an issue or question in dispute
which ought to be tried?
If yes Court should dismiss the
application for summary Judgment
by the plaintiff.
If no Court should give judgment
Defendant must:
Raise an issue or question in
dispute which ought to be tried i.e
triable issue, or
Raise an issue or dispute that ought
for some other reason to be a trial of
that claim
I.e there is a triable defence to the
action
Case Law
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Issue
Are the various issues raised by the
defendants arguable issues which
merits a full trial when evaluated
against the evidence adduced by the
plaintiff
through
his
several
affidavit?
How to determine whether or not
there are arguable issue?
continue
Where such assertion, denial or dispute is
equivocal, or lacking in precision or is
inconsistent with undisputed contemporary
documents or other statements by the same
deponent or is inherently improbable in
itself, the judge has a duty to reject such
assertion or denial, thereby rendering the
issue not triable.
Continue
Unless this principle is adhered to, a judge
is in no position to exercise his discretion
judicially in an O.14 application.
Issue
The source of the deponents belief
Q: From Where should the deponent
get or form his belief that the def has
no defence to the claim?
Issue
Whether defendants parkinsons
disease a triable issue?
Other Cases
1. JALLCON (M) SDN BHD V NIKKEN
METAL (M) SDN BHD (NO.2)
[2001] 6 CLJ 23
- SJ by Def on Counterclaim