DARWINA BINTI AB RAHMAN HYM ALLIANCE SDN BHD & ANOR

DARWINA BINTI AB RAHMAN HYM ALLIANCE SDN BHD & ANOR

The High Court allowed the appeal because the appellant's pleaded misrepresentation in tort and the allegation that the 2nd Defendant was the alter ego of the 1st Defendant raised triable issues which could not be fairly resolved on a strike out application; the matter requires oral evidence and a full trial.

Citation
WA-12ANCVC-280-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Darwina binti Ab Rahman; 1st Respondent/defendant: HYM Alliance Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Respondent/defendant: Nurul Nabilah binti Itam Ahmad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Case Number
WA-12ANCVC-280-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (high Court) From Sessions Court / Judgment (appeal Allowed and Remitted for Trial)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order striking out set aside; matter remitted for full trial.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Strike Out, Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012, Alter Ego, Privity of Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Tort Civil Procedure Company Law Misrepresentation Strike Out Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 Alter Ego +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darwina binti Ab Rahman

Appellant/plaintiff

HYM Alliance Sdn. Bhd.

1st Respondent/defendant

Nurul Nabilah binti Itam Ahmad

2nd Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (high Court) From Sessions Court / Judgment (appeal Allowed and Remitted for Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a triable cause of action not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process under Order 18 Rule 19
  2. 2 Whether the alleged representations by the 2nd Defendant give rise to tortious liability against the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant can be treated as the alter ego of the 1st Defendant such that the company is bound

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the appellant's pleaded misrepresentation in tort and the allegation that the 2nd Defendant was the alter ego of the 1st Defendant raised triable issues which could not be fairly resolved on a strike out application; the matter requires oral evidence and a full trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order striking out set aside; matter remitted for full trial.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; the Sessions Court order striking out the plaintiff's claim under Order 18 Rule 19 is set aside and the case is remitted for full trial.