NORDIN BIN SIDIN 1. MOHAMED KHALED BIN NORDIN 2. KERAJAAN NEGERI JOHOR 3. PUJB RETAIL SDN BHD

NORDIN BIN SIDIN 1. MOHAMED KHALED BIN NORDIN 2. KERAJAAN NEGERI JOHOR 3. PUJB RETAIL SDN BHD

The claim was struck out because on the face of the pleadings there was no reasonable cause of action: no contractual or special/fiduciary relationship arose between the plaintiff and the First Defendant in respect of the plaintiff's private grievance, the launch speech did not amount to actionable representations...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-21NCVC-15-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nordin bin Sidin; 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-15-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Strike Out Application (order 18 R19)
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Fiduciary Duty, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Administrative Law Strike Out Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Fiduciary Duty Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

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

Nordin bin Sidin

Plaintiff

Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin

First Defendant

Kerajaan Negeri Johor

Second Defendant

PUJB Retail Sdn Bhd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Strike Out Application (order 18 R19)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established a special or fiduciary relationship giving rise to a duty of care for negligent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the statements alleged to be representations were statements of fact or mere speech/endorsement
  3. 3 Whether any alleged representation was false when made

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because on the face of the pleadings there was no reasonable cause of action: no contractual or special/fiduciary relationship arose between the plaintiff and the First Defendant in respect of the plaintiff's private grievance, the launch speech did not amount to actionable representations of fact, and the plaintiff adduced no evidence that any alleged representation was false when made, rendering the claim obviously unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The First Defendant's application to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim is allowed.
  • The Writ and Statement of Claim are struck out.