THE Kuala Lumpur High Court has refused to set aside a RM15.5 million default judgment against cosmetics mogul Datuk Seri Hasmiza Othman, better known as Datuk Seri Vida, in a long-running dispute with Maybank Islamic Berhad over unpaid financing facilities.
Judicial Commissioner Norsharidah Awang dismissed an application by Vida and her company, Vida Beauty Sdn Bhd, ruling that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence and that the judgment had been properly obtained, reported The New Straits Times.
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear in court or respond within the stipulated time, allowing the plaintiff to secure judgment without a full trial.
Court documents show that the dispute stems from two Commodity Murabahah Term Financing-i facilities totalling RM8.946 million, granted to Vida Beauty in October 2017 with a repayment tenure of 15 years. Vida had also signed personal guarantees for both facilities.
The bank subsequently terminated the facilities after the defendants failed to service their monthly instalments, demanding full settlement of the bank’s sale price, including profit and late payment charges.
On 6 January 2023, the court recorded a default judgment in the sum of RM15,520,708.91 after the defendants failed to enter an appearance.
In December of the same year, the defendants applied to set aside the judgment and sought an extension of time to file their defence.
They argued that the writ and statement of claim had not been properly served and contended that they had a defence on the merits.
Vida further maintained that the bank’s claim was premature and that the amount sought included unearned profit as well as issues relating to ibra’, or rebate.
In grounds delivered yesterday, Norsharidah said the approximately 11-month delay in filing the application was unreasonable and had not been satisfactorily explained.
She noted that although the court has discretion to grant an extension of time, such discretion is not automatic and must be supported by compelling reasons.
The court found that the writ had been served in accordance with the terms of the financing agreements and guarantees, which permitted service by prepaid registered post to the contractual address.
Norsharidah concluded that the defendants had failed to raise any triable issue and that allowing the application would undermine the finality of proceedings and commercial certainty.
The court also awarded costs of RM5,000 to the bank. - March 5, 2026
