MOHD HAFIS BIN JOHAN 1. MOHAMED KHALED BIN NORDIN 2. KERAJAAN NEGERI JOHOR 3. PUJB RETAIL SDN BHD

MOHD HAFIS BIN JOHAN 1. MOHAMED KHALED BIN NORDIN 2. KERAJAAN NEGERI JOHOR 3. PUJB RETAIL SDN BHD

The claim was struck out because Plaintiff failed to plead a special or fiduciary relationship or any contractual nexus with the First Defendant, the launch speech did not constitute statements of fact or actionable misrepresentations, and no evidence showed representations were false when made; therefore the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was obviously unsustainable.

Citation
JA-21NCVC-17-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohd Hafis bin Johan; First Defendant: Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin; Second Defendant: Kerajaan Negeri Johor; Third Defendant: PUJB Retail Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Case Number
JA-21NCVC-17-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory — Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
First Defendant's striking out application allowed; Plaintiff's writ and Statement of Claim struck out as unsustainable
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Fiduciary Relationship, Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Civil Procedure Administrative Law Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Fiduciary Relationship Striking Out Under Order 18 R.19

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Hafis bin Johan

Plaintiff

Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin

First Defendant

Kerajaan Negeri Johor

Second Defendant

PUJB Retail Sdn Bhd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Interlocutory — Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a special or fiduciary relationship existed between Plaintiff and First Defendant giving rise to duty of care
  2. 2 Whether statements in a launch speech by the Chief Minister amounted to actionable misrepresentations of fact
  3. 3 Whether the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not frivolous or vexatious

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because Plaintiff failed to plead a special or fiduciary relationship or any contractual nexus with the First Defendant, the launch speech did not constitute statements of fact or actionable misrepresentations, and no evidence showed representations were false when made; therefore the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was obviously unsustainable.

Court Disposition

First Defendant's striking out application allowed; Plaintiff's writ and Statement of Claim struck out as unsustainable

Orders

  • Writ and Statement of Claim struck out
  • Costs awarded to First Defendant in the sum of MYR2500 subject to allocatur fees