DAVID LOO KOK WENG 1. ) AHMAD FIKRI BIN AHMAD ZAMRI 2. ) SHAHRULNIZAM BIN JALALUDDIN (Pemilik tunggal berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya Goldigit Resources

DAVID LOO KOK WENG 1. ) AHMAD FIKRI BIN AHMAD ZAMRI 2. ) SHAHRULNIZAM BIN JALALUDDIN (Pemilik tunggal berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya Goldigit Resources

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the Second Defendant was not privy to the Settlement Agreement and signed only as a witness; therefore under the doctrine of privity of contract the Plaintiff could not enforce rights against him and the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process warranting striking out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b),(c) and (d).

Citation
NA-A52NCvC-38-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: DAVID LOO KOK WENG; First Defendant: AHMAD FIKRI BIN AHMAD ZAMRI; Second Defendant: SHAHRULNIZAM BIN JALALUDDIN
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 December 2024
Case Number
NA-A52NCvC-38-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (contract) / Post Judgment (appeal Against Striking Out Order)
Outcome
Application to strike out allowed; Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim struck out as against Second Defendant
Legal Topics
Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC 2012, Privity of Contract, Settlement Agreement, Abuse of Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC 2012 Privity of Contract Settlement Agreement Abuse of Process

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DAVID LOO KOK WENG

Plaintiff

AHMAD FIKRI BIN AHMAD ZAMRI

First Defendant

SHAHRULNIZAM BIN JALALUDDIN

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (contract) / Post Judgment (appeal Against Striking Out Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant was a party to the Settlement Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the Second Defendant was not privy to the Settlement Agreement and signed only as a witness; therefore under the doctrine of privity of contract the Plaintiff could not enforce rights against him and the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process warranting striking out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b),(c) and (d).

Court Disposition

Application to strike out allowed; Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim struck out as against Second Defendant

Orders

  • Strike out Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012
  • Plaintiff to pay costs to the Second Defendant in the sum of RM 500