EXTREME REWARDS SDN BHD SINO PATH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

EXTREME REWARDS SDN BHD SINO PATH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The counterclaim was struck out because it constituted an abusive and defective pleading introduced as an afterthought, raised issues that were academic or no longer live after the consent judgment in OS 311 (res judicata), and included at least one prayer (declaration that RM1,268,750 was a personal loan) that was unsustainable in light of prior summary judgment; therefore striking out under O.18 r.19(1)(d) was appropriate.

Citation
WA-22NCC-38-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (main Suit); Defendant (counterclaim Defendant): Extreme Rewards Sdn Bhd; Defendant (main Suit); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Sino Path Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant (counterclaim): Chuah Kooi Sang; Defendant (counterclaim): Lim Mui Ying
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 October 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCC-38-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Company and Contract Dispute / Striking Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 Decided by High Court (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Striking out application allowed; counterclaim dismissed as an abuse of process and obviously unsustainable
Legal Topics
Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Declaratory Relief, Fiduciary Duties, Summary Judgment, Oppression Proceedings S.346 Companies Act 2016
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity and Fiduciary Law Trusts Law Limitation Law Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19 Abuse of Process Res Judicata +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Extreme Rewards Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (main Suit); Defendant (counterclaim Defendant)

Sino Path Development Sdn Bhd

Defendant (main Suit); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Chuah Kooi Sang

Defendant (counterclaim)

Lim Mui Ying

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Company and Contract Dispute / Striking Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 Decided by High Court (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court's process
  2. 2 Whether declaratory relief claimed is academic and non-justiciable
  3. 3 Whether issues in the counterclaim are barred by res judicata due to prior consent judgment in OS 311

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim was struck out because it constituted an abusive and defective pleading introduced as an afterthought, raised issues that were academic or no longer live after the consent judgment in OS 311 (res judicata), and included at least one prayer (declaration that RM1,268,750 was a personal loan) that was unsustainable in light of prior summary judgment; therefore striking out under O.18 r.19(1)(d) was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Striking out application allowed; counterclaim dismissed as an abuse of process and obviously unsustainable

Orders

  • Enclosure 20 dismissed with costs
  • Counterclaim in the Amended Defence and Counterclaim struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)(d)