XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX

The writs and statements of claim in Guaman 83 were struck out because the Federal Court had already determined the plaintiff had executed the share sale agreement and ordered specific performance, leaving no reasonable cause of action; additionally one plaintiff was bankrupt and thus lacked standing. The application to revive and substitute the deceased plaintiff in Guaman 80 was refused because there was undue delay in estate action, no appointed estate representative with resolved capacity due to competing wills and ongoing probate disputes, and allowing substitution at that stage would amount to an abuse of the court's process.

Citation
22NCVC-80-02/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (guaman 83); Defendant (guaman 80): THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY; Plaintiff (guaman 83): TEOH SOO BENG; Plaintiff (guaman 80); Defendant (guaman 83): TAN SAI HONG; Defendant (guaman 83); Applicant as Estate Representative (guaman 80): TEOH KIANG HONG; Defendant (guaman 80): ONG TEIK HOE; Defendant (guaman 83): JURU AUTO-CITY SDN. BHD.; Defendant (guaman 83): HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN. BHD.; Defendant (guaman 83): WESTERN FRONTIER SDN. BHD.; Defendant (guaman 83): SURUHANJAYA SYARIKAT MALAYSIA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Case Number
22NCVC-80-02/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Actions (guaman Sivil) / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Application to Revive/substitute Plaintiff)
Outcome
Guaman 83: Writ and statement of claim of both plaintiffs struck out; Guaman 80: application to revive and substitute plaintiff refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out Under Court Rules, Specific Performance, Substitution of Parties After Death, Abuse of Court Process, Capacity of Estate Representative, Delay in Estate Administration
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Probate and Administration Strike Out Under Court Rules Specific Performance Substitution of Parties After Death Abuse of Court Process Capacity of Estate Representative +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, HENRY

Plaintiff (guaman 83); Defendant (guaman 80)

TEOH SOO BENG

Plaintiff (guaman 83)

TAN SAI HONG

Plaintiff (guaman 80); Defendant (guaman 83)

TEOH KIANG HONG

Defendant (guaman 83); Applicant as Estate Representative (guaman 80)

ONG TEIK HOE

Defendant (guaman 80)

JURU AUTO-CITY SDN. BHD.

Defendant (guaman 83)

HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN. BHD.

Defendant (guaman 83)

WESTERN FRONTIER SDN. BHD.

Defendant (guaman 83)

SURUHANJAYA SYARIKAT MALAYSIA

Defendant (guaman 83)

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Actions (guaman Sivil) / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Application to Revive/substitute Plaintiff)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the writ and statement of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings amount to an abuse of court process warranting strike out
  3. 3 Whether an application to revive and substitute a deceased plaintiff may be allowed given delay and unresolved probate disputes

Ratio Decidendi

The writs and statements of claim in Guaman 83 were struck out because the Federal Court had already determined the plaintiff had executed the share sale agreement and ordered specific performance, leaving no reasonable cause of action; additionally one plaintiff was bankrupt and thus lacked standing. The application to revive and substitute the deceased plaintiff in Guaman 80 was refused because there was undue delay in estate action, no appointed estate representative with resolved capacity due to competing wills and ongoing probate disputes, and allowing substitution at that stage would amount to an abuse of the court's process.

Court Disposition

Guaman 83: Writ and statement of claim of both plaintiffs struck out; Guaman 80: application to revive and substitute plaintiff refused

Orders

  • Guaman 83: Writ and Statement of Claim of Plaintiff One and Plaintiff Two are struck out without costs
  • Guaman 80: Application at Lampiran 62 to revive the Writ and Statement of Claim and to substitute Teoh Kiang Hong as plaintiff is dismissed without costs