PULAU PINANG CLINIC SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 10387-K] KOAY SIEW HUAR (NO. K/P: 520424-07-5284)

PULAU PINANG CLINIC SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 10387-K] KOAY SIEW HUAR (NO. K/P: 520424-07-5284)

The appeal succeeds because it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's claim must fail: the final bill was not in existence and could not have been adjudicated in earlier suits, there was no finding that discharged the 3rd defendant as guarantor, and the issues require full trial evidence rather than summary determination under Order 18 r 19.

Citation
PA-12ANCVC-27-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff / Perayu: Pulau Pinang Clinic Sdn Bhd; 3rd Defendant / Respondent: Koay Siew Huar; 1st Defendant (deceased): Choo Wee Thim; 2nd Defendant / Party in Prior Proceedings: Liew Ju Min
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 January 1900
Case Number
PA-12ANCVC-27-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Appeal Against Striking Out Order; Remitted for Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court striking out order reversed; action reinstated
Legal Topics
Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19, Guarantee of Payment, Guarantor Liability, Estoppel, Res Judicata, Summary Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity and Trusts Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19 Guarantee of Payment Guarantor Liability Estoppel Res Judicata +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pulau Pinang Clinic Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff / Perayu

Koay Siew Huar

3rd Defendant / Respondent

Choo Wee Thim

1st Defendant (deceased)

Liew Ju Min

2nd Defendant / Party in Prior Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Appeal Against Striking Out Order; Remitted for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is obviously unsustainable for strike out under Order 18 r 19
  2. 2 Whether the present action is a subsequent action barred by res judicata or estoppel
  3. 3 Whether the Guarantee of Payment signed by the 3rd defendant was discharged or superseded by earlier High Court proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeds because it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's claim must fail: the final bill was not in existence and could not have been adjudicated in earlier suits, there was no finding that discharged the 3rd defendant as guarantor, and the issues require full trial evidence rather than summary determination under Order 18 r 19.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court striking out order reversed; action reinstated

Orders

  • Decision of the Sessions Court Judge dated 31.5.2019 reversed
  • Action reinstated and remitted to the Sessions Court for trial by viva voce evidence