VIGNA RAJ A/L SITHAMPARANATHAN 1. ) METRO ELDERCARE SDN BHD 2. ) RAMESH SIVARAJ A/L RAJASINGAM CHELLIAH

VIGNA RAJ A/L SITHAMPARANATHAN 1. ) METRO ELDERCARE SDN BHD 2. ) RAMESH SIVARAJ A/L RAJASINGAM CHELLIAH

The High Court found the claim was improperly instituted in the plaintiff's personal name contrary to mandatory provisions ss.347-348 Companies Act 2016; permitting the proposed amendment would effect a vertical substitution altering the character of the suit, circumvent statutory time limits and prejudice defendants; therefore the claim constituted an abuse of court process and was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 r19 ROC; amendment application was dismissed.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-469-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Vigna Raj a/l Sithamparanathan; 1st Defendant: Metro Eldercare Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Defendant: Ramesh Sivaraj a/l Rajasingam Chelliah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 October 2024
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-469-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Derivative Action (company Law) / High Court Striking Out Decision; Appeal Lodged to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Strike out granted; defendants' strike-out applications allowed; plaintiff's amendment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Companies Act 2016 S.347, Companies Act 2016 S.348, Order 18 Rule 19 ROC, Order 20 Rule 5 ROC, Amendment of Pleadings, Abuse of Court Process, Res Judicata/estoppel
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Inherent Jurisdiction Derivative Action Companies Act 2016 S.347 Companies Act 2016 S.348 Order 18 Rule 19 ROC Order 20 Rule 5 ROC +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vigna Raj a/l Sithamparanathan

Plaintiff

Metro Eldercare Sdn. Bhd.

1st Defendant

Ramesh Sivaraj a/l Rajasingam Chelliah

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Action (company Law) / High Court Striking Out Decision; Appeal Lodged to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit was improperly instituted in the plaintiff's personal name contrary to s.347(1)&(2) Companies Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether amendment to substitute party capacity (vertical amendment) is permissible after leave and within statutory time under s.348 Companies Act 2016
  3. 3 Whether the non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements and parallel proceedings render the action an abuse of court process and warrant striking out under Order 18 r19 ROC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the claim was improperly instituted in the plaintiff's personal name contrary to mandatory provisions ss.347-348 Companies Act 2016; permitting the proposed amendment would effect a vertical substitution altering the character of the suit, circumvent statutory time limits and prejudice defendants; therefore the claim constituted an abuse of court process and was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 r19 ROC; amendment application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Strike out granted; defendants' strike-out applications allowed; plaintiff's amendment dismissed.

Orders

  • Enclosures 11 and 14 allowed with costs of RM5000 each (subject to allocator)
  • Enclosure 19 dismissed with no order as to costs