ANNAMARY A/P BALASAMY (K/P NO. 650517-01-5985) sebagai ibu yang sah kepada MARGREAD A/P JAIJIN, simati dan membawa tindakan ini untuk dirinya dan juga pihak estate simati dibawah Seksyen 7 & 8 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956, dan juga bagi ga

ANNAMARY A/P BALASAMY (K/P NO. 650517-01-5985) sebagai ibu yang sah kepada MARGREAD A/P JAIJIN, simati dan membawa tindakan ini untuk dirinya dan juga pihak estate simati dibawah Seksyen 7 & 8 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956, dan juga bagi ga

Section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956 plainly prohibits more than one action in respect of the same subject matter; because the husband had earlier filed a dependency claim resulting in consent judgment, the plaintiff's subsequent dependency claim was barred and properly struck out; section 7(8) does not permit multiple actions by beneficiaries in a way that undermines s7(5); multiplicity of proceedings can be addressed by strike out and need not be specially pleaded.

Citation
JA-12A-4-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Annamary A/P Balasamy; Respondent/defendant: Yip Jian Hui; Respondent/defendant: Yip Jian Xiang
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 December 2020
Case Number
JA-12A-4-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (dependency Claim Under Civil Law Act 1956) / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dependency Claim, Section 7 Civil Law Act 1956, Multiplicity of Actions, Striking Out, Order 14 a, Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) & (d) Rules of Court 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Law Tort Procedural Law Fatal Accidents Law Limitation Dependency Claim Section 7 Civil Law Act 1956 Multiplicity of Actions +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annamary A/P Balasamy

Appellant/plaintiff

Yip Jian Hui

Respondent/defendant

Yip Jian Xiang

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (dependency Claim Under Civil Law Act 1956) / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s7(5) Civil Law Act 1956 bars subsequent dependency claims where an earlier claim in respect of the same subject matter resulted in a consent judgment
  2. 2 Whether s7(8) Civil Law Act 1956 permits a separate dependency claim by beneficiaries where no executor is appointed
  3. 3 Whether multiplicity of proceedings may be the subject of a striking out application under the Rules of Court

Ratio Decidendi

Section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956 plainly prohibits more than one action in respect of the same subject matter; because the husband had earlier filed a dependency claim resulting in consent judgment, the plaintiff's subsequent dependency claim was barred and properly struck out; section 7(8) does not permit multiple actions by beneficiaries in a way that undermines s7(5); multiplicity of proceedings can be addressed by strike out and need not be specially pleaded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's appeal dismissed
  • Striking out of the plaintiff's dependency claim upheld