AZLINDA BINTI ABDUL RAFAR 1. ) ANWARI BIN HAMZAH 2. ) DELEGASI JURURAWAT MALAYSIA

AZLINDA BINTI ABDUL RAFAR 1. ) ANWARI BIN HAMZAH 2. ) DELEGASI JURURAWAT MALAYSIA

The strike‑out was allowed because the plaintiff's statement of claim re‑alleged matters covered by a prior consent judgment (thus contemptuous and estopped) and also raised issues that are the subject of a pending suit in another court; these facts rendered the pleadings an abuse of process and defective, justifying removal under Order 18 r.19(1).

Citation
AA-B53CY-2-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff/perayu: Azlinda binti Abdul Rafar; Defendant/respondent: Anwari bin Hamzah; Defendant/respondent: Delegasi Jururawat Malaysia
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 October 2022
Case Number
AA-B53CY-2-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Strike‑out Application / High Court Appeal (against Sessions Court Order)
Outcome
Enclosure 29 allowed; writ and statement of claim struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)
Legal Topics
Order 18 Rule 19(1) Strike‑out, Consent Judgment, Res Judicata/sub Judice, Pleadings, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Abuse of Process Order 18 Rule 19(1) Strike‑out Consent Judgment Res Judicata/sub Judice Pleadings +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azlinda binti Abdul Rafar

Plaintiff/perayu

Anwari bin Hamzah

Defendant/respondent

Delegasi Jururawat Malaysia

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Strike‑out Application / High Court Appeal (against Sessions Court Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim offends a prior consent judgment and is therefore barred
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim is an abuse of process because the same issues are the subject of a pending suit
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded statements are scandalous, vexatious or embarrassing and thus liable to be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The strike‑out was allowed because the plaintiff's statement of claim re‑alleged matters covered by a prior consent judgment (thus contemptuous and estopped) and also raised issues that are the subject of a pending suit in another court; these facts rendered the pleadings an abuse of process and defective, justifying removal under Order 18 r.19(1).

Court Disposition

Enclosure 29 allowed; writ and statement of claim struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)

Orders

  • Enclosure 29 allowed (application to strike out)
  • Writ and Statement of Claim struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1)