SALING BIN LAU BEE CHIANG & 77 OTHERS KANAWAGI A/L SEPURAMANIAM

SALING BIN LAU BEE CHIANG & 77 OTHERS KANAWAGI A/L SEPURAMANIAM

The application by the 29th Plaintiff to set aside the perfected High Court order was dismissed because the applicant failed to discharge the legal burden of proving an exception to the rule that a perfected order cannot be set aside; additionally the 29th Plaintiff lacked locus standi under the Warrant to Act which vested authority in the 1st Plaintiff and the authorised solicitors.

Citation
22-228-2009 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
1st Plaintiff (lead Plaintiff): Saling bin Lau Bee Chiang; 29th Plaintiff (applicant): Raman bin Jantan; Defendant: Kanawagi a/l Seperumaniam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 March 2020
Case Number
22-228-2009 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Suit (trust Matter) / Application to Set Aside Perfected High Court Order (enclosure 139) — Interlocutory Application Heard and Decided
Outcome
Application by 29th Plaintiff (Enclosure 139) dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Trustee, Locus Standi, Setting Aside Perfected Order, Inherent Jurisdiction, Perfection of Court Order
Source Language
Malay/English
Trusts Civil Procedure Appeals Appointment of Trustee Locus Standi Setting Aside Perfected Order Inherent Jurisdiction Perfection of Court Order

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saling bin Lau Bee Chiang

1st Plaintiff (lead Plaintiff)

Raman bin Jantan

29th Plaintiff (applicant)

Kanawagi a/l Seperumaniam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Suit (trust Matter) / Application to Set Aside Perfected High Court Order (enclosure 139) — Interlocutory Application Heard and Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 29th Plaintiff had locus standi to file Enclosure 116 or to apply to set aside the resulting order via Enclosure 139
  2. 2 Whether a perfected High Court order can be set aside by the High Court absent proof of illegality, lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the Warrant to Act conferred exclusive authority on the 1st Plaintiff and sole solicitor to act for all Plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

The application by the 29th Plaintiff to set aside the perfected High Court order was dismissed because the applicant failed to discharge the legal burden of proving an exception to the rule that a perfected order cannot be set aside; additionally the 29th Plaintiff lacked locus standi under the Warrant to Act which vested authority in the 1st Plaintiff and the authorised solicitors.

Court Disposition

Application by 29th Plaintiff (Enclosure 139) dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated Enclosure 139 by the 29th Plaintiff is dismissed with costs