Atalian Holdings (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd Datuk Hj Radzali Hassan

Atalian Holdings (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd Datuk Hj Radzali Hassan

The counterclaim as pleaded discloses no reasonable cause of action against Defendants 2–9 because it relies on allegations against an undefined collective 'Atalian Group' rather than identified legal entities, pleads matters that are harms to the company not to the counterclaimant personally (proper plaintiff rule), fails to plead fraud/deceit with required particulars, seeks unsustainable and vague relief, and attempts to bind non-contracting parties contrary to privity of contract; accordingly Encls.20–27 struck out, Enc.19 dismissed was resolved differently.

Citation
WA-22NCC-349-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant to Counterclaim: ATALIAN HOLDINGS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff by Counterclaim: DATUK HJ RADZALI HASSAN; 2nd Defendant to Counterclaim: ATALIAN GLOBAL SERVICES SDN BHD; 3rd Defendant to Counterclaim: ATALIAN ASIA HOLDING LIMITED; 4th Defendant to Counterclaim: YEOH KHOON CHENG; 5th Defendant to Counterclaim: ATALIAN INTERNATIONAL S.A.; 6th Defendant to Counterclaim: FRANCK JULIEN; 7th Defendant to Counterclaim: FJ INTERNATIONAL INVEST S.A.; 8th Defendant to Counterclaim: ATALIAN HOLDINGS DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY S.A.; 9th Defendant to Counterclaim: LA FINANCIERE ATALIAN S.A.S
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCC-349-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Suit (commercial Division) / Interlocutory Striking Out Applications Under Order 18 R.19(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012; Grounds of Judgment and Disposal of Encls.19–27
Outcome
Applications by 2nd–9th Defendants to strike out counterclaim allowed; application by 1st Defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out of Pleadings, Privity of Contract, Proper Plaintiff Rule, Pleading Requirements, Fraud and Deceit, Declaratory Relief, Lifting Corporate Veil
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Equity and Trusts Corporate Governance Commercial Law Strike Out of Pleadings Privity of Contract +5 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ATALIAN HOLDINGS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant to Counterclaim

DATUK HJ RADZALI HASSAN

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff by Counterclaim

ATALIAN GLOBAL SERVICES SDN BHD

2nd Defendant to Counterclaim

ATALIAN ASIA HOLDING LIMITED

3rd Defendant to Counterclaim

YEOH KHOON CHENG

4th Defendant to Counterclaim

ATALIAN INTERNATIONAL S.A.

5th Defendant to Counterclaim

FRANCK JULIEN

6th Defendant to Counterclaim

FJ INTERNATIONAL INVEST S.A.

7th Defendant to Counterclaim

ATALIAN HOLDINGS DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY S.A.

8th Defendant to Counterclaim

LA FINANCIERE ATALIAN S.A.S

9th Defendant to Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Suit (commercial Division) / Interlocutory Striking Out Applications Under Order 18 R.19(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012; Grounds of Judgment and Disposal of Encls.19–27

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action against Defendants 2–9
  2. 2 Whether allegations against an undefined entity 'the Atalian Group' can ground liability
  3. 3 Whether pleaded allegations amount to fraud or deceit with requisite particulars

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim as pleaded discloses no reasonable cause of action against Defendants 2–9 because it relies on allegations against an undefined collective 'Atalian Group' rather than identified legal entities, pleads matters that are harms to the company not to the counterclaimant personally (proper plaintiff rule), fails to plead fraud/deceit with required particulars, seeks unsustainable and vague relief, and attempts to bind non-contracting parties contrary to privity of contract; accordingly Encls.20–27 struck out, Enc.19 dismissed was resolved differently.

Court Disposition

Applications by 2nd–9th Defendants to strike out counterclaim allowed; application by 1st Defendant dismissed

Orders

  • Enc.20, Enc.21, Enc.22, Enc.23, Enc.24, Enc.25, Enc.26 and Enc.27 allowed with costs of RM2,500 each subject to allocator
  • Enc.19 dismissed with costs of RM2,500 subject to allocator