KHIEW CHZE YEONG NEO PEI CHI @ LEO PEI CHI

KHIEW CHZE YEONG NEO PEI CHI @ LEO PEI CHI

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly found that the plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy, fraud and negligence (and the disputed factual issues about who advanced funds and whether part repayment occurred) are not plainly unsustainable or exclusively within the matrimonial proceedings and therefore cannot be struck out summarily; these matters require trial and, if necessary, a stay application under the Rules of Court would have been the proper procedure for issues said to be matrimonial assets.

Citation
JB-12A-1-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/2nd Defendant: Khiew Chze Yeong; Respondent/plaintiff: Neo Pei Chi @ Leo Pei Chi; 1st Defendant: Hup Tien Plantations Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Case Number
JB-12A-1-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Decision on Strike Out Application (order 18 Rule 19(1)(d) ROC 2012)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court upheld
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Abuse of Court Process, Matrimonial Assets Jurisdiction, Conspiracy and Fraud, Negligence, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Family Law Tort Striking Out Abuse of Court Process Matrimonial Assets Jurisdiction Conspiracy and Fraud Negligence +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khiew Chze Yeong

Appellant/2nd Defendant

Neo Pei Chi @ Leo Pei Chi

Respondent/plaintiff

Hup Tien Plantations Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Decision on Strike Out Application (order 18 Rule 19(1)(d) ROC 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court claim is an abuse of court process warranting strike out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d) ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the claims concerning monies and shares are exclusively matrimonial assets to be determined by the Matrimonial Court
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's claims are plainly unsustainable such that summary dismissal is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly found that the plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy, fraud and negligence (and the disputed factual issues about who advanced funds and whether part repayment occurred) are not plainly unsustainable or exclusively within the matrimonial proceedings and therefore cannot be struck out summarily; these matters require trial and, if necessary, a stay application under the Rules of Court would have been the proper procedure for issues said to be matrimonial assets.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Matter to proceed for trial in the Sessions Court