Soh Kok Fui Tay Bee Hong

Soh Kok Fui Tay Bee Hong

Defendant could not rely on O18 R19(1)(a) after adducing contested factual affidavits because O18 R19(2) bars evidence on such an application; the endorsement error on the Writ was not fatal in the absence of prejudice; the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution and raised factual disputes that require full trial; therefore the Sessions Court's striking out order was incorrect and must be set aside and the matter remitted for trial.

Citation
JA-12A-23-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Soh Kok Fui; Respondent/defendant: Tay Bee Hong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Case Number
JA-12A-23-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Striking Out Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court striking out order set aside; matter remitted to Sessions Court for trial; costs awarded to Appellant
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Striking Out, Police Report Privilege, Rules of Court 2012, Abuse of Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Litigation Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Striking Out Police Report Privilege Rules of Court 2012 Abuse of Process

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soh Kok Fui

Appellant/plaintiff

Tay Bee Hong

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Striking Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Writ and Statement of Claim should be struck out under O18 R19 Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether evidence in affidavits displaces the prohibition on evidence in O18 R19(1)(a) applications
  3. 3 Whether complainant enjoys absolute privilege for police reports in a malicious prosecution claim at strike out stage

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant could not rely on O18 R19(1)(a) after adducing contested factual affidavits because O18 R19(2) bars evidence on such an application; the endorsement error on the Writ was not fatal in the absence of prejudice; the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution and raised factual disputes that require full trial; therefore the Sessions Court's striking out order was incorrect and must be set aside and the matter remitted for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court striking out order set aside; matter remitted to Sessions Court for trial; costs awarded to Appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of the Sessions Court dated 17/06/2021 striking out the Writ and Statement of Claim set aside