JETS MANAGEMENT (M) SDN BHD LOO THIN TUCK

JETS MANAGEMENT (M) SDN BHD LOO THIN TUCK

The Sessions Court found the defendant established triable issues such that summary judgment under Order 14 could not be granted, and separately determined the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action so the defendant's strike-out/abuse of process application under Order 18 r.19 (and Order 92 r.4 jurisdiction) failed; res judicata/estoppel did not conclusively bar the claim because issues raised were not identical for that purpose.

Citation
AA-A52NCC-74-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: JETS MANAGEMENT (M) SDN BHD; Defendant: LOO THIN TUCK
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 September 2022
Case Number
AA-A52NCC-74-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt Claim and Related Applications (summary Judgment and Strike Out) / Sessions Court Judgment on Order 14 and Order 18 Applications; Appeals Filed to High Court
Outcome
Plaintiff's Order 14 application dismissed; Defendant's Order 18/92 application dismissed; no order as to costs for either application.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Strike Out (order 18 R.19), Res Judicata/estoppel, Post Dated Cheques, Dividend Declaration, Directors' Loans
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Res Judicata Negotiable Instruments Summary Judgment (order 14) Strike Out (order 18 R.19) +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JETS MANAGEMENT (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

LOO THIN TUCK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt Claim and Related Applications (summary Judgment and Strike Out) / Sessions Court Judgment on Order 14 and Order 18 Applications; Appeals Filed to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the defendant raised a triable issue
  3. 3 Whether the writ and statement disclose no reasonable cause of action (Order 18 r.19)

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court found the defendant established triable issues such that summary judgment under Order 14 could not be granted, and separately determined the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action so the defendant's strike-out/abuse of process application under Order 18 r.19 (and Order 92 r.4 jurisdiction) failed; res judicata/estoppel did not conclusively bar the claim because issues raised were not identical for that purpose.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Order 14 application dismissed; Defendant's Order 18/92 application dismissed; no order as to costs for either application.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application under Order 14 (Lampiran 6) is dismissed; no order as to costs.
  • Defendant's application under Order 18 r.19 and/or Order 92 r.4 (Lampiran 13) is dismissed; no order as to costs.