Asian Air Charter Sdn. Bhd. v Mohd Radzi Bin Manan (AA-22NCvC-17-02/2024)

26.12.2025. Therefore, judgment may be entered immediately. b) In Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue v Leong Wooi Kit & Ors [2025] CLJU 804; [2025] MLRHU 683, it was 80 decided that admissions made "otherwise" than in the pleadings, ie, in separate affidavits, constitute binding admissions. Here, the defendant’s admissions were also found in affidavits and agreed facts, not merely in pleadings. Consistent with Bay Avenue’s case, these 85 admissions are unequivocal and binding, and are sufficient on their own to support judgment on admissions in favour of the plaintiff. [6]. Admissions, once made, constitute cogent and most substantial evidence, and they justify summary judgment 90 without the need for a full trial. The Effect of the Defendant’s Silence [7]. Despite being given time and opportunity by the court, the defendant failed to file any affidavit in reply within the prescribed time. The affidavit in reply and submissions were 95 only filed on the very day Enclosure 75 was fixed for decision (27.1.2026), at 7.53 a.m. In these circumstances, the court is constrained to disregard the affidavit and submissions, as the defendant failed to comply with the court’s directions despite ample opportunity. In Tan Yiew Kim v Caltex Oil Malaysia 100 Limited [2008] MLJU 224; [2008] CLJU 46; [2008] 6 MLRH S/N o2k7soF6C0igJnC7Zc8nww 160, the High Court struck out the plaintiff’s affidavit in reply and excluded it from consideration. The court held that the affidavit was filed in blatant disregard of mandatory procedural rules and express court directions, having been lodged 41 105 days out of time and merely two days before the hearing. The learned judge held that procedural rules are not mere technicalities, and that the court will not come to the aid of litigants who treat them lightly or with disregard. [8]. It is a long-standing principle, as established in, Ng Hee 110 Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 MLRA 48, [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 AMR 622, that where a party makes a positive assertion on a material issue in an affidavit, the failure of the opponent to contradict it is treated as an admission of that fact. 115 Other consideration [9]. The court is constrained to consider the defendant’s overall conduct throughout these proceedings. The defendant had earlier filed an application to amend the defence at a very late stage, just days before trial, which was dismissed by this court 120 and subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The timing and manner of that application were plainly incongruent with the procedural stage of the case, particularly when the statement of agreed facts had long been settled, and trial directions had been substantially complied with. The 125 explanation offered, namely that the earlier pleading was the S/N o2k7soF6C0igJnC7Zc8nww fault of junior counsel, does not amount to any cogent or credible justification. The application was clearly an eleventh-hour attempt that would have disrupted the trial process and bore the hallmarks of a tactical manoeuvre rather than a bona 130 fide amendment. [10]. This court observes that the defendant’s conduct has remained unchanged. In the present application, despite being afforded an extension of time to file an affidavit in opposition to Order 27, the defendant again failed to comply within the time 135 directed. Such conduct reflects a continued lack of seriousness and disregard for court directions and the discipline of case management. [11]. Further, the defendant’s challenge to the present application for judgment on admissions is, in substance, an attempt to 140 deny the plaintiff the judgment to which it is entitled, notwithstanding that the defendant himself had admitted the material facts. Order 27 Rule 3 exists precisely to prevent unnecessary delay where liability is established by admission. Viewed cumulatively, the defendant’s conduct reinforces the 145 court’s conclusion that the resistance to the application is not grounded on any genuine triable issue but is merely an attempt to avoid the consequences of his own admissions. 150 S/N o2k7soF6C0igJnC7Zc8nww Conclusion [12]. Accordingly, judgment is entered for the plaintiff under Order 27 Rule 3 of Rules of Court 2012, in respect of Enclosure 75, Prayer (1) (i) to (vii). Further the defendant is ordered to return 155 the aircraft within 14 days from service of the order. Alternatively, assessment for claim for market value for the aircraft and other consequential relief. Costs of RM5,000 is awarded to the plaintiff, subject to allocator. 160 Dated : 3 March 2026 165 [MOSES SUSAYAN] JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK 170 175 S/N o2k7soF6C0igJnC7Zc8nww Counsel : For the Plaintiff : Ranjit Singh 180 (together with H.S. Tyndall) Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Ranjit Singh & Co.] Ipoh, Perak 185 For the Defendant : Sia Guan Yao Advocates and Solicitors Messrs Arthur Yeong Nonee Ashirin Ipoh, Perak 190 Headnotes: CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgment on admissions – Application under Order 27 Rule 3 – Whether clear and unequivocal admissions in pleadings, agreed facts and affidavit – Whether material facts no 195 longer in dispute – Whether admissions made “by pleadings or otherwise” are binding – Whether failure to file affidavit in reply amounts to admission – Whether Court entitled to disregard late affidavit filed in disregard of court directions – Whether admissions constitute cogent and strongest evidence – Whether any valid legal 200 justification to avoid consequences of admissions – Whether Defendant’s conduct shows lack of seriousness and tactical manoeuvre. S/N o2k7soF6C0igJnC7Zc8nww