POEY YEE MENG & 132 OTHERS 1. ) TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD- O18 allowed on 10.6.2025. 2. ) ISKANDAR INVESTMENT BERHAD- O18 allowed on 10.6.2025. 3. ) PUBLIC BANK BHD 4. ) PUBLIC ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 5. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAY

POEY YEE MENG & 132 OTHERS 1. ) TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD- O18 allowed on 10.6.2025. 2. ) ISKANDAR INVESTMENT BERHAD- O18 allowed on 10.6.2025. 3. ) PUBLIC BANK BHD 4. ) PUBLIC ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 5. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAY

The Statement of Claim was struck out because it flagrantly breached the Rules of Court 2012: it pleaded evidence not facts, was prolix and repetitive, failed to disclose causes of action for many named plaintiffs and against certain defendants, improperly joined multiple unrelated causes of action and thereby risked prejudice, embarrassment and delay; under Orders 18 r.19, 34 r.1, 15 r.5 and the Court's inherent powers the proper and economical remedy was striking out with liberty to file afresh.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-620-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiffs: POEY YEE MENG et al.; Defendants: TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD et al.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-620-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike‑out on Court's Own Motion; Judgment Granting Liberty to File Afresh
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim struck out by Court on its own motion
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Pleadings, Representative Action, Joinder, Late Delivery of Vacant Possession, Illegality of Sale and Purchase Agreement, Case Management
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Property Law Banking Law Strike Out Pleadings Representative Action Joinder +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

POEY YEE MENG et al.

Plaintiffs

TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD et al.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike‑out on Court's Own Motion; Judgment Granting Liberty to File Afresh

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Court may strike out a defective statement of claim on its own motion under the Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the Statement of Claim disclosed causes of action for all named plaintiffs and against all named defendants
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings complied with Order 18 r.7 (plead facts not evidence)

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim was struck out because it flagrantly breached the Rules of Court 2012: it pleaded evidence not facts, was prolix and repetitive, failed to disclose causes of action for many named plaintiffs and against certain defendants, improperly joined multiple unrelated causes of action and thereby risked prejudice, embarrassment and delay; under Orders 18 r.19, 34 r.1, 15 r.5 and the Court's inherent powers the proper and economical remedy was striking out with liberty to file afresh.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim struck out by Court on its own motion

Orders

  • Statement of Claim struck out for non‑compliance with Rules of Court 2012
  • Liberty granted to the Plaintiffs to file a fresh Statement of Claim in accordance with the Rules of Court 2012