25 Jan 2022
The High Court allowed the appeal because the appellant's pleaded misrepresentation in tort and the allegation that the 2nd Defendant was the alter ego of the 1st Defendant raised triable issues which could not be fairly resolved on a strike out application; the matter requires oral evidence and a full trial.
16 Aug 2021
PKNP's pleadings were struck out because there was no cause of action against it: it was not party to the 1st Contract and privity barred the contractual claim. The claim against Taipan Merit was struck out as frivolous and an abuse of process because it sought contribution/indemnity on a different contract for a larger sum (RM450,000) that was not interconnected with the Plaintiff's claim (RM275,000) against the Appellant; the warranty periods and factual basis differed so contribution/indemnity could not arise. Consequently the Sessions Court's striking out was correct and the appeals were…
10 Feb 2020
The Court held that the Defendant's indemnity claim against TP1 raises triable issues of fact — including pleaded allegations that TP1 acted as the Plaintiff's alter ego, endorsed and negotiated over EUT and sent messages evidencing knowledge — and therefore it is not obviously unsustainable and cannot be summarily struck out under O.18 r.19. Conversely, the Defendant's claim for contribution against TP2 lacked any pleading that TP2 was a joint tortfeasor or in pari delicto, and the Defendant did not invoke or frame common issues by Form 19 under O.16 r.1(1)(c); therefore the contribution cla…
On the balance of probabilities the court found the sale and purchase agreements existed and that the purchase price had been paid; the Second Defendant had held itself out as vendor (including letters to assessment authorities) and received moneys and is therefore estopped from denying the validity of the agreements; the First Defendant as executor/trustee is a proper party and judgment is entered for the Plaintiff against the First and Second Defendants.