1. ) MOHD HAFIZI BIN MOHD SALLEH 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHAHRUL IZHAM BIN ANUAR 3. ) ZABIDAH BINTI ATAN ACTIVE TRAFFIC SERVICES SDN. BHD.

1. ) MOHD HAFIZI BIN MOHD SALLEH 2. ) MUHAMMAD SHAHRUL IZHAM BIN ANUAR 3. ) ZABIDAH BINTI ATAN ACTIVE TRAFFIC SERVICES SDN. BHD.

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's striking out of the appellants' counterclaim because the counterclaim was an obvious afterthought inconsistent with earlier admissions, lacked necessary particulars to disclose a cause of action or establish causation for the alleged pecuniary losses, and the trial judge...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-12ANCvC-42-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Mohd Hafizi bin Mohd Salleh; Appellant Defendant: Muhammad Shahrul Izham bin Anuar; Appellant Defendant: Zabidah binti Atan; Respondent Plaintiff: Active Traffic Services Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 August 2022
Case Number
BA-12ANCvC-42-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sessions Court Against Interlocutory Order Striking Out Counterclaim Under Order 18 R.19(1) Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Counterclaim, Interlocutory Application, Admission of Liability, Sufficiency of Particulars, Appellate Intervention, Damages and Causation
Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Tort Law Pleadings Striking Out Counterclaim Interlocutory Application Admission of Liability +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Hafizi bin Mohd Salleh

Appellant Defendant

Muhammad Shahrul Izham bin Anuar

Appellant Defendant

Zabidah binti Atan

Appellant Defendant

Active Traffic Services Sdn Bhd

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sessions Court Against Interlocutory Order Striking Out Counterclaim Under Order 18 R.19(1) Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court correctly struck out the appellants' counterclaim under Order 18 r.19(1)(a),(b) and (d) as obviously unsustainable
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim contained sufficient particulars to disclose a cause of action and alleged pecuniary loss
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim was an afterthought inconsistent with earlier admissions and replies

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's striking out of the appellants' counterclaim because the counterclaim was an obvious afterthought inconsistent with earlier admissions, lacked necessary particulars to disclose a cause of action or establish causation for the alleged pecuniary losses, and the trial judge properly exercised discretion under Order 18 r.19(1); appellate intervention was unwarranted as there was no plain error in fact or law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM6,000.00 to be taxed (subject to fi alokatur)
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 1-4-2022 striking out the counterclaim under Order 18 r.19(1) Rules of Court 2012 is affirmed