SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH 1. ) THOMAS THOMAS @ MOHAN A/L K. THOMAS 2. ) KHONG HUI LI 3. ) MOHD ADRIAN ZAIMAN BIN ZAINIAR 4. ) MD YUSRIN BIN MD YUSOF 5. ) MOHD FADHLY BIN MOHD ZAMRY 6. ) NESAVAN A/L THEYVENDRAM 7. ) SHARAN RAJ A/L GOVINDASA

SUNDRA RAJOO A/L NADARAJAH 1. ) THOMAS THOMAS @ MOHAN A/L K. THOMAS 2. ) KHONG HUI LI 3. ) MOHD ADRIAN ZAIMAN BIN ZAINIAR 4. ) MD YUSRIN BIN MD YUSOF 5. ) MOHD FADHLY BIN MOHD ZAMRY 6. ) NESAVAN A/L THEYVENDRAM 7. ) SHARAN RAJ A/L GOVINDASA

The court held the Defendants' striking out application failed because the Statement of Claim on its face was not obviously unsustainable and raised disputed facts and legal questions requiring full trial; however paragraphs 56 and 57 of the First Defendant’s affidavit were expunged as scandalous and oppressive because they improperly attacked the Federal Court's binding decision on immunity and were unnecessary to the application.

Citation
WA-21NCVC-187-10/2021 (LAMPIRAN 20) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas; Appellant/defendant: Khong Hui Li; Appellant/defendant: Mohd Adrian Zaiman bin Zainiar; Appellant/defendant: Md Yusrin bin Md Yusof; Appellant/defendant: Mohd Fadhly bin Mohd Zamry; Appellant/defendant: Nesavan a/l Theyvendram; Appellant/defendant: Sharan Raj a/l Govindasamy; Appellant/defendant: Hasmizzy bin Md Hasim; Appellant/defendant: Kamal Baharin bin Omar; Appellant/defendant: Mohd Zaki bin Mohd Salleh; Appellant/defendant: Mohamad Shukri bin Abdull; Appellant/defendant: Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia; Appellant/defendant: Kerajaan Malaysia; Respondent/plaintiff: Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah
Court
LAMPIRAN 20
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Case Number
WA-21NCVC-187-10/2021 (LAMPIRAN 20) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Interlocutory Judgment on Striking Out and Expungement Applications
Outcome
Defendants' striking out application dismissed; Plaintiff's expungement application partially allowed
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Striking Out (order 18 R19), Expungement of Affidavit Material (order 41 R6), Judicial Review, Malicious Prosecution
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Public Law State Immunity Striking Out (order 18 R19) Expungement of Affidavit Material (order 41 R6) Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas

Appellant/defendant

Khong Hui Li

Appellant/defendant

Mohd Adrian Zaiman bin Zainiar

Appellant/defendant

Md Yusrin bin Md Yusof

Appellant/defendant

Mohd Fadhly bin Mohd Zamry

Appellant/defendant

Nesavan a/l Theyvendram

Appellant/defendant

Sharan Raj a/l Govindasamy

Appellant/defendant

Hasmizzy bin Md Hasim

Appellant/defendant

Kamal Baharin bin Omar

Appellant/defendant

Mohd Zaki bin Mohd Salleh

Appellant/defendant

Mohamad Shukri bin Abdull

Appellant/defendant

Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia

Appellant/defendant

Kerajaan Malaysia

Appellant/defendant

Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Interlocutory Judgment on Striking Out and Expungement Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff, as former Director of AIAC, enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution and the scope of that immunity
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' striking out application under Order 18 Rule 19 should succeed (i.e. whether the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous/frivolous/vexatious, prejudicial to fair trial or abuse of process)
  3. 3 Whether paragraphs 55–58 (in particular 56–57) of the Defendant’s affidavit are scandalous, irrelevant or oppressive and should be expunged

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Defendants' striking out application failed because the Statement of Claim on its face was not obviously unsustainable and raised disputed facts and legal questions requiring full trial; however paragraphs 56 and 57 of the First Defendant’s affidavit were expunged as scandalous and oppressive because they improperly attacked the Federal Court's binding decision on immunity and were unnecessary to the application.

Court Disposition

Defendants' striking out application dismissed; Plaintiff's expungement application partially allowed

Orders

  • Defendants' striking out application (Enclosure 12) dismissed with costs of MYR 10000 to the Plaintiff
  • Plaintiff's expungement application (Enclosure 20) partly allowed; paragraphs 56 and 57 of the First Defendant’s affidavit expunged