ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HASIM MUHAMMAD IZMER BIN YUSOF

ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HASIM MUHAMMAD IZMER BIN YUSOF

The appeal court held the strike‑out application was meritorious because the plaintiff reproduced entire Facebook posts without specifying the particular words and defamatory meanings as required by mandatory Order 78 r 3; that defect made the claim plainly unsustainable and prejudicial to the defendant, and the Sessions Judge erred in refusing the application.

Citation
RA-12A-4-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Abdul Rahman bin Hasim; Respondent/plaintiff: Muhammad Izmer bin Yusof
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 January 2022
Case Number
RA-12A-4-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation / Interlocutory) / Appeal From Sessions Court Decision on Strike‑out Application Under Order 18 R 19 and Order 92 R 4 Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision of 30/6/2021 set aside; defendant's strike‑out application allowed
Legal Topics
Strike Out (order 18 R 19), Pleading Particulars in Defamation (order 78 R 3), Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Pleadings Strike Out (order 18 R 19) Pleading Particulars in Defamation (order 78 R 3) Abuse of Process Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Rahman bin Hasim

Appellant/defendant

Muhammad Izmer bin Yusof

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation / Interlocutory) / Appeal From Sessions Court Decision on Strike‑out Application Under Order 18 R 19 and Order 92 R 4 Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's application to strike out the writ and statement of claim under Order 18 r 19 and/or Order 92 r 4 was meritorious
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's pleadings complied with mandatory requirement to particularise alleged defamatory words under Order 78 r 3
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court erred in refusing the strike out application

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court held the strike‑out application was meritorious because the plaintiff reproduced entire Facebook posts without specifying the particular words and defamatory meanings as required by mandatory Order 78 r 3; that defect made the claim plainly unsustainable and prejudicial to the defendant, and the Sessions Judge erred in refusing the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision of 30/6/2021 set aside; defendant's strike‑out application allowed

Orders

  • Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim struck out for non‑compliance with Order 78 r 3 and as plainly unsustainable under Order 18 r 19 and/or Order 92 r 4 Rules of Court 2012
  • Costs of the appeal to defendant fixed at RM5,000.00 subject to fi alokatur