SIM CHENG YOUNG 1. ) 3LYON HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) DATUK WIRA RANJEET SINGH SIDHU 3. ) DATO HAJI CHE PEE BIN SAMSUDIN 4. ) DATUK MANIBALAN KUTTY A/L RAGAVAN

SIM CHENG YOUNG 1. ) 3LYON HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) DATUK WIRA RANJEET SINGH SIDHU 3. ) DATO HAJI CHE PEE BIN SAMSUDIN 4. ) DATUK MANIBALAN KUTTY A/L RAGAVAN

The court found that although the plaintiff's pleadings were not exemplary, they sufficiently put the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants on notice of the allegations and the case was not plain and obvious or obviously unsustainable; therefore the discretionary power to strike out under Order 18 rule 19(1) should not be exercised and the striking out application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
BA-22NCC-171-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sim Cheng Young; First Defendant: 3LYON HOLDINGS BERHAD; Second Defendant: Datuk Wira Ranjeet Singh Sidhu; Third Defendant: Dato' Haji Che Pee bin Samsudin; Fourth Defendant: Datuk Manibalan Kutty a/l Ragavan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Case Number
BA-22NCC-171-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19(1))
Outcome
Application to strike out (Enclosure 14) dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Pleadings Particularity, Directors' Liability, Redeemable Preference Shares, Consent Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Tort (fraud and Misrepresentation) Striking Out Pleadings Particularity Directors' Liability Redeemable Preference Shares +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sim Cheng Young

Plaintiff

3LYON HOLDINGS BERHAD

First Defendant

Datuk Wira Ranjeet Singh Sidhu

Second Defendant

Dato' Haji Che Pee bin Samsudin

Third Defendant

Datuk Manibalan Kutty a/l Ragavan

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19(1))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the writ should be struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's fraud and misrepresentation claims are pleaded with sufficient particularity under Order 18 rule 12
  3. 3 Whether there is any cause of action against the Second to Fourth Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the plaintiff's pleadings were not exemplary, they sufficiently put the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants on notice of the allegations and the case was not plain and obvious or obviously unsustainable; therefore the discretionary power to strike out under Order 18 rule 19(1) should not be exercised and the striking out application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out (Enclosure 14) dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 14 dismissed with costs of RM3,000