Judgment , Orders, Assessment of Damages, Costs

Judgment VS order

judgment - final

order - interlocutory

What should a successfully party in a suit do?

• o42r8 - draft a judgment or order and submit to solicitor of the other party for approval within 2 days of the decision

• If the other party dispute the contents - terms of judgment could only be settled in court

assessment of damages

o37r1 - damages shall be assessed by Registrar if judgment did not state how to assess damages

• successfully party shall apply to R for directions within one month from the date of judgment

• the R may give directions as to when to file a notice of appointment of assessment of damages in Form 62A -

• the abovesaid notice shall be filed within 6 months from the date of judgment

• after it is filed - shall serve on D within 7 days from the date the notice is filed

• R will hear evidence from both parties to determine the appropriate quantum of damages

• After deciding - o37r2 - R shall certify the amount of damages

When there is clerical mistake, error or omission arising from accidental slip or omission in the judgment or order

o20r11 - parties may apply to crt to amend the error by filing NOA + affidavit to the court without appeal

• this power to amend must be exercised judicially, not capriciously

[Syarikat Marak Jaya v Masinda]

• applies to consent judgment or order

If it is not a clerical mistake

• file NOA + affidavit

OR

• make an appointment with the Registrar to appear before the judge to inform him and ask him to rectify the mistake

[Hock Hua Bank v Sahari]

court has no power under any application in the same action to amend or vary a judgment regularly obtained unless it is necessary to correct the errors under the slip rule to express the intention of Courts

If court not functus officio yet - judgment not perfected

[Chee Kuan Cheng v Chuo] - crt has wide discretion to review the subject matter or recall an order pronounced

to challenge / vary or set aside a perfected judgment

[Badiaddin v AMF] - crt can invoke inherent powers under o92r4 to set aside if the order is made

• illegally

• crt lacks juris

• in the interest of justice

otherwise, may file an appeal if it is still within the timeframe

to set aside CONSENT JUDGMENT

• s68 CJA 64’ - no appeal shall lie where judgment or order is made by consent

• [Devindran v Kerajaan Negeri Johor] - CJ cannot be set aside in the same action but - by bringing a fresh action for that purpose - can rely on grounds like undue influence , misrepresentation , fraud to set aside

costs in the cause

o59r1(3) - party in whose favor an order for costs is made at the conclusion of the cause shall be entitled to his costs of proceedings

• if P wins and is awarded an order for his costs - also entitles to interlocutory costs as part of his costs against D

• if D win, vice versa

cost in any event

• o59r1(3) - costs shall be determined after the conclusion of the cause

• costs will be decided after the trial is concluded regardless the party for the interlocutory application wins or loses his application

D applies for o24 discovery - allowed - no costs awarded at this stage - will only determine at the end of trial - losing party will have to pay costs to the winning - even if the o24 application is rejected

D wants assurance that P would pay whatever costs that are awarded to D in the event P’s case is dismissed

• D can apply for security for costs under o23

• to prevent abuse of process whereby losing P fails to pay costs to D

• defensive move to prevent being out-of-pocket by the D

Application for security for costs

• D apply via NOA + affidavit stating grounds of application - see o23(1)(a)-(d)

Timeframe to file security for costs

[Adarsh Pandit v Viking Engineering] - FC held the application can be filed at any time of the proceedings but D should be advised to file promptly or he will have to explain the delay

whether court will order P to give security for costs

• proviso to o23r1 - court will have regard to all circumstances of the case and order if it thinks it is just to do so

• [Sir Lindsay v Triplan]

  • bona fide

  • whether this order would have a result of stifling a genuine claim even if D do not intend to

  • likelihood of success of P

  • was the application made at a late stage

  • was the impecuniosity of P caused by D

• quantum of security required by D must be a reasonable sum - not oppressive

applying for security for costs against P who is a company

s580A Companies Act 2016

• if it appears by credible testimony and there is reason to believe that the company will not be able to pay the costs of D - order security - and stay all proceedings until security given