LEING TI KANG (NRIC No. 880531085153) LAU TIAN KIT (NRIC No. 610519115241)

LEING TI KANG (NRIC No. 880531085153) LAU TIAN KIT (NRIC No. 610519115241)

The 2nd Counter Claim was struck out because it failed to plead the essential elements and requisite particulars of a conspiracy (no pleaded agreement, intent or overt acts, no particularised loss), rendering it unsustainable; the 1st Counter Claim was not struck out because its pleadings disclosed at least an arguable case of conspiracy against Nexgram, NHB and Mazru such that it was not a plain and obvious failure; the s410 JM bar did not preclude hearing Enclosure 94 because the JM application was dismissed (or leave obtained).

Citation
WA-22NCC-210-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (main Action); Defendant (1st Counterclaim): Leing Ti Kang; Defendant (main Action); Plaintiff (1st Counterclaim); Defendant (2nd Counterclaim): Lau Tian Kit; Plaintiff (1st Counterclaim); Defendant (2nd Counterclaim): Spacious Glory Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (1st Counterclaim); Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim): Coconut Three Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (1st Counterclaim); Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim): Nexgram Holdings Berhad; Defendant (1st Counterclaim); Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim): Mazru bin Mat Yusof; Defendant (1st Counterclaim): Wasudevan a/l Shridathan; Defendant (1st Counterclaim): Mohd Razali bin Abdullah; Defendant (1st Counterclaim): Joseph Anak Nanang; Defendant (1st Counterclaim): Choo Kay Lin; Defendant (2nd Counterclaim): Mak Lin Kum; Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim): Tey Por Yee
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 November 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCC-210-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Division (high Court) / Applications to Strike Out Counterclaims Heard and Determined (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Enclosure 94 allowed; Enclosure 96 dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Injure, Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19 RC 2012, Judicial Management (s410 Companies Act 2016), Res Judicata, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Company Law Civil Procedure Conspiracy to Injure Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19 RC 2012 Judicial Management (s410 Companies Act 2016) Res Judicata Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leing Ti Kang

Plaintiff (main Action); Defendant (1st Counterclaim)

Lau Tian Kit

Defendant (main Action); Plaintiff (1st Counterclaim); Defendant (2nd Counterclaim)

Spacious Glory Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (1st Counterclaim); Defendant (2nd Counterclaim)

Coconut Three Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (1st Counterclaim); Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim)

Nexgram Holdings Berhad

Defendant (1st Counterclaim); Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim)

Mazru bin Mat Yusof

Defendant (1st Counterclaim); Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim)

Wasudevan a/l Shridathan

Defendant (1st Counterclaim)

Mohd Razali bin Abdullah

Defendant (1st Counterclaim)

Joseph Anak Nanang

Defendant (1st Counterclaim)

Choo Kay Lin

Defendant (1st Counterclaim)

Mak Lin Kum

Defendant (2nd Counterclaim)

Tey Por Yee

Plaintiff (2nd Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Division (high Court) / Applications to Strike Out Counterclaims Heard and Determined (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Counter Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action for the tort of conspiracy to injure
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Counter Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is frivolous/vexatious/abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the filing or hearing of Enclosure 94 was prohibited by s410 Companies Act 2016 due to a pending judicial management application

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Counter Claim was struck out because it failed to plead the essential elements and requisite particulars of a conspiracy (no pleaded agreement, intent or overt acts, no particularised loss), rendering it unsustainable; the 1st Counter Claim was not struck out because its pleadings disclosed at least an arguable case of conspiracy against Nexgram, NHB and Mazru such that it was not a plain and obvious failure; the s410 JM bar did not preclude hearing Enclosure 94 because the JM application was dismissed (or leave obtained).

Court Disposition

Enclosure 94 allowed; Enclosure 96 dismissed

Orders

  • 2nd Counter Claim (Enclosure 94) struck out
  • Application in Enclosure 96 dismissed