LIN KAI LAM (NO. K/P : 570928-10-5219) WONG SOU FUAN (NO. K/P : 600728-10-5788) COLIN ANDREW PEREIRA (NO. K/P : 670728-10-6223)

LIN KAI LAM (NO. K/P : 570928-10-5219) WONG SOU FUAN (NO. K/P : 600728-10-5788) COLIN ANDREW PEREIRA (NO. K/P : 670728-10-6223)

The court refused the defendant's strike out application: the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence claim was a distinct cause of action from the defendant's separate fee claims, res judicata and abuse of process did not apply given differing causes, facts and required evidence, and limitation could not be assumed to have started on the consent order date because clause 4 required further settlement arrangements; factual and witness evidence were necessary, therefore summary dismissal under Order 18 r19 was inappropriate.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-565-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Colin Andrew Pereira; Respondent/plaintiff: Lin Kai Lam; Respondent/plaintiff: Wong Sou Fuan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 October 2019
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-565-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Interlocutory Application / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) and (d) Rules of Court 2012 (kandungan 8)
Outcome
Defendant's application under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) & (d) dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Negligence, Abuse of Process, Cause of Action Accrual, Striking Out for Abuse/limitation, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Res Judicata/estoppel Contract/commercial Law Limitation Solicitor Negligence Abuse of Process Cause of Action Accrual +2 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Andrew Pereira

Appellant/defendant

Lin Kai Lam

Respondent/plaintiff

Wong Sou Fuan

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Interlocutory Application / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) and (d) Rules of Court 2012 (kandungan 8)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's strike out application under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) & (d) should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' negligence claim is barred by res judicata or constitutes an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the claim is statute-barred and when the cause of action accrued

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the defendant's strike out application: the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence claim was a distinct cause of action from the defendant's separate fee claims, res judicata and abuse of process did not apply given differing causes, facts and required evidence, and limitation could not be assumed to have started on the consent order date because clause 4 required further settlement arrangements; factual and witness evidence were necessary, therefore summary dismissal under Order 18 r19 was inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) & (d) dismissed

Orders

  • Application (Kandungan 8) dismissed
  • Costs awarded to plaintiffs in the sum of RM2,000.00 subject to allocatur