CHANG PENG SOON 1. SIM AH MOW 2. TAY LI PING

CHANG PENG SOON 1. SIM AH MOW 2. TAY LI PING

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the SPA was authentic and its material terms were undisputed; the plaintiffs had performed their obligations (including registration of shares) and had validly demanded RM400,000; the defence and counterclaim did not raise any bona fide triable issue (no pleaded fraud, misrepresentation, duress or other vitiating factors) and were therefore obviously unsustainable and an abuse of process; accordingly the striking out under Order 18 r 19 was proper and summary judgment under Order 14 r 1 was properly entered for the plaintiffs. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Citation
JB-12ANCVC-1-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Chang Peng Soon; Respondent / 1st Plaintiff: Sim Ah Mow; Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff: Tay Li Ping
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 March 2021
Case Number
JB-12ANCVC-1-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Involving Contract for Sale of Shares and Applications for Summary Judgment and Striking Out / High Court Appeal Hearing and Judgment (appeal From Sessions Court Decision Dated 12 March 2020)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed; Sessions Court orders affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14 Rule 1 Rules of Court 2012), Striking Out Pleadings (order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012), Privity of Contract, Specific Performance/payment Under Contract, Admissibility of Documents (evidence Act Ss 91 92)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Company Law Evidence Law Summary Judgment (order 14 Rule 1 Rules of Court 2012) Striking Out Pleadings (order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012) Privity of Contract Specific Performance/payment Under Contract +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chang Peng Soon

Appellant / Defendant

Sim Ah Mow

Respondent / 1st Plaintiff

Tay Li Ping

Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Involving Contract for Sale of Shares and Applications for Summary Judgment and Striking Out / High Court Appeal Hearing and Judgment (appeal From Sessions Court Decision Dated 12 March 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court correctly struck out the amended statement of defence and counterclaim under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) and (d) as being obviously unsustainable/abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the Sessions Court correctly entered summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 1 where the defendant had no bona fide triable defence to plaintiffs' claim for RM400,000

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the SPA was authentic and its material terms were undisputed; the plaintiffs had performed their obligations (including registration of shares) and had validly demanded RM400,000; the defence and counterclaim did not raise any bona fide triable issue (no pleaded fraud, misrepresentation, duress or other vitiating factors) and were therefore obviously unsustainable and an abuse of process; accordingly the striking out under Order 18 r 19 was proper and summary judgment under Order 14 r 1 was properly entered for the plaintiffs. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed; Sessions Court orders affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals JB-12ANCVC-1-04/2020 and JB-12ANCVC-2-04/2020 dismissed
  • Order of the Sessions Court dated 12 March 2020 allowing Summary Judgment (Order 14 Rule 1) and striking out the Amended Statement of Defence and Amended Counterclaim (Order 18 Rule 19) affirmed