VIJAYAKUMAR A/L RAJENDRAM JOHNSON & JOHNSON SDN. BHD. PIHAK TERKILAN Universiti Malaya (UM)

VIJAYAKUMAR A/L RAJENDRAM JOHNSON & JOHNSON SDN. BHD. PIHAK TERKILAN Universiti Malaya (UM)

The application under Order 33 Rule 2 is dismissed because the issues raised are not pure questions of law but are intertwined with disputed facts, expert medical evidence and allegations of fraudulent concealment that require a full trial; the defendant failed to satisfy the threshold for summary determination.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-440-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: JOHNSON & JOHNSON SDN BHD; Plaintiff/respondent: VIJAYAKUMAR A/L RAJENDRAM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 November 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-440-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Negligence/product Liability / Interlocutory Application Under Order 33 Rule 2
Outcome
Defendant's application (Enclosure 33) dismissed
Legal Topics
Order 33 Rule 2 Preliminary Issues, Limitation Act 1953 S6(1)(a) and S29, Fraudulent Concealment, Causation and Injury
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Product Liability Medical Negligence Order 33 Rule 2 Preliminary Issues Limitation Act 1953 S6(1)(a) and S29 Fraudulent Concealment Causation and Injury

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

Parties

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SDN BHD

Defendant/appellant

VIJAYAKUMAR A/L RAJENDRAM

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Negligence/product Liability / Interlocutory Application Under Order 33 Rule 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is time-barred under s6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953
  2. 2 Whether s29 Limitation Act 1953 (fraudulent concealment) applies
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has suffered actionable injury attributable to the defendant's product

Ratio Decidendi

The application under Order 33 Rule 2 is dismissed because the issues raised are not pure questions of law but are intertwined with disputed facts, expert medical evidence and allegations of fraudulent concealment that require a full trial; the defendant failed to satisfy the threshold for summary determination.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application (Enclosure 33) dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 33 dismissed
  • Suit to proceed to full trial on all issues including limitation, concealment, injury, defect and causation