CHANDIRASEGARAN A/L RAMASAMY PERSATUAN PENGUSAHA JURUGAYA RAMBUT INDIA MALAYSIA

CHANDIRASEGARAN A/L RAMASAMY PERSATUAN PENGUSAHA JURUGAYA RAMBUT INDIA MALAYSIA

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action against the 1st Defendant: there was no contractual relationship or privity between the deceased/plaintiff and the 1st Defendant (no employer‑employee contract or equivalent to confer beneficiary rights under the group policy), therefore the claim against the 1st Defendant was frivolous/vexatious and properly struck out; limitation against the 1st Defendant was moot.

Citation
WA-11ANCC-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Chandirasegaran A/L Ramasamy; Respondent/1st Defendant: Persatuan Pengusaha Jurugaya Rambut India Malaysia; 2nd Defendant: AM General Insurance Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 September 2023
Case Number
WA-11ANCC-7-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrate's Court Striking‑out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's order striking out the Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant affirmed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Privity, Breach of Contract, Repudiation of Insurance Claim, Group Insurance, Limitation
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Strike Out Privity Breach of Contract Repudiation of Insurance Claim +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandirasegaran A/L Ramasamy

Appellant/plaintiff

Persatuan Pengusaha Jurugaya Rambut India Malaysia

Respondent/1st Defendant

AM General Insurance Berhad

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrate's Court Striking‑out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is contractual privity or nexus between the deceased/plaintiff and the 1st Defendant entitling plaintiff to sue the 1st Defendant for the insured sum
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action against the 1st Defendant or the claim is frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process warranting strike‑out under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim is time‑barred under Section 6(1) Limitation Act 1953

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action against the 1st Defendant: there was no contractual relationship or privity between the deceased/plaintiff and the 1st Defendant (no employer‑employee contract or equivalent to confer beneficiary rights under the group policy), therefore the claim against the 1st Defendant was frivolous/vexatious and properly struck out; limitation against the 1st Defendant was moot.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's order striking out the Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant affirmed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Magistrate's order dated 5.4.2023 striking out the Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant affirmed