SEETHA A/P KUMARASAMY AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN BHD & 2 OTHERS

SEETHA A/P KUMARASAMY AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN BHD & 2 OTHERS

The court found the plaintiff’s separate action was an abuse of process because it duplicated issues pending in an earlier suit and was brought mala fide to derail that suit; therefore the claim was properly struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-732-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Seetha A/P Kumarasamy; 1st Defendant: Aker Solutions Malaysia Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: Aker Engineering Malaysia Sdn Bhd; 3rd Defendant: Aker Solutions APAC Sdn Bhd; 4th Defendant: Aker Solutions ASA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 May 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-732-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out, Counterclaim, Conspiracy, Confidential Information
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Employment Law Commercial Law Tort Abuse of Process Strike Out Counterclaim Conspiracy +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seetha A/P Kumarasamy

Plaintiff

Aker Solutions Malaysia Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Aker Engineering Malaysia Sdn Bhd

2nd Defendant

Aker Solutions APAC Sdn Bhd

3rd Defendant

Aker Solutions ASA

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff’s fresh suit is an abuse of process given a pending related suit by the 1st and 2nd defendants
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should have sought relief in the earlier pending suit by way of strike out application or counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff acted mala fide in filing a duplicative action to derail the earlier suit

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff’s separate action was an abuse of process because it duplicated issues pending in an earlier suit and was brought mala fide to derail that suit; therefore the claim was properly struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s claim struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012
  • Defendants awarded costs of RM4,000