ALIPAWPAW ENTERPRISE 1. ) CHEN NIKKI 2. ) GREEN HARMONY PET SUPPLIES

ALIPAWPAW ENTERPRISE 1. ) CHEN NIKKI 2. ) GREEN HARMONY PET SUPPLIES

Where the dispute is between the partners inter se, Order 77 r1 and the Partnership Act do not justify instituting the action in the firm name; the proper course is for the individual partner to sue in their own name. Consequently the Sessions Court did not err in striking out the Writ and Statement of Claim and its decision is affirmed; appeals dismissed with costs.

Citation
BA-12ANCvC-75-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Alipawpaw Enterprise; Respondent/defendant: Chen Nikki; Respondent/defendant: Green Harmony Pet Supplies
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Case Number
BA-12ANCvC-75-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Regarding Striking Out of Writ and Statement of Claim; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of Sessions Court striking out Writ and Statement of Claim affirmed
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Striking Out Under Order 18 R19, Suits Involving Partnerships Between Partners Inter Se, Order 77 R1 Rules of Court 2012, Partnership Act 1961 S6
Source Language
Malay/English
Partnership Law Civil Procedure Equity and Fiduciary Duties Tort Law Locus Standi Striking Out Under Order 18 R19 Suits Involving Partnerships Between Partners Inter Se Order 77 R1 Rules of Court 2012 +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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alipawpaw Enterprise

Appellant/plaintiff

Chen Nikki

Respondent/defendant

Green Harmony Pet Supplies

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Regarding Striking Out of Writ and Statement of Claim; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in striking out the Writ and Statement of Claim
  2. 2 Whether the First Respondent was a partner of the partnership
  3. 3 Whether a dispute between two partners may be litigated in the name of the partnership

Ratio Decidendi

Where the dispute is between the partners inter se, Order 77 r1 and the Partnership Act do not justify instituting the action in the firm name; the proper course is for the individual partner to sue in their own name. Consequently the Sessions Court did not err in striking out the Writ and Statement of Claim and its decision is affirmed; appeals dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of Sessions Court striking out Writ and Statement of Claim affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals Nos 3 and 75 dismissed with costs
  • Wong Shoo Mei to pay costs of RM6,000 to the Respondents subject to allocatur