Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discontinuance of action

Legal area

Court

6 May 2024

Lee Ngan Hoo 1. ) Insp Sarawanan A/L Panrengam 2. ) Ketua Polis daerah Dang Wangi 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara Malaysia 4. ) Komisioner Jeneral Penjara 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-54-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-54-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Discontinuance of the suit is allowed but without liberty to file afresh and with costs to defendants because the plaintiff failed to prepare for trial despite court directions, defendants had taken preparatory steps and any fresh suit would be time-barred under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 s.2; exercise of discretion under Order 21 r 3 ROC permits imposition of 'no liberty' term to prevent injustice and misuse.
25 Mar 2024

XXXX 1. ) CAKRA BERTUAH TRADING 2. ) CHEE LAI MING

Citation

WA-A53KJ-401-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A53KJ-401-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

An oral application to discontinue, made after partial hearing, was sufficient where the plaintiff gave reasonable grounds and the defendants were not prejudiced; formal application and affidavits were not required given the overriding objective and Order 2 treating non-compliance as irregularity; court exercised discretion to allow discontinuance with liberty to file afresh and awarded costs to protect defendants (RM5000).
26 Jan 2024

PROF DATO DR RAHMAT BIN MOHAMAD Shahizad Bin Sulaiman

Citation

WA-23NCvC-28-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-28-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the plaintiff filed notice within Order 21 r 2 ROC, the court held the discontinuance was an abuse of process because the filing had already produced a substantial advantage to the plaintiff (SUHAKAM ceased investigation under s12), prejudicing the defendant; accordingly the court was entitled to allow discontinuance but impose the term 'no liberty to file afresh' and award costs to the defendant.
23 May 2023

Yee Voon Hon 1. ) Tai Boon Wee 2. ) Tai QiSheng 3. ) Tai QiYao

Citation

BA-22NCvC-140-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-140-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 21 r 3(1) to allow the plaintiff to discontinue the action but ordered the discontinuance to be without liberty to file afresh because the defendants had become dominus litis, the matter was at an advanced stage with substantial preparation for trial, the plaintiff's stated reasons were insufficient and potentially tactical, and permitting refiling would prejudice the defendants; costs were awarded to defendants.
12 Dec 2022

XXXX XXXX PIHAK KETIGA XXXX

Citation

WA-22NCVC-69-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-69-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because Defendan Pertama made full payment of RM170,000 and plaintiffs agreed to re‑transfer the disputed property, the principal cause of action no longer existed; the counterclaim was interrelated and dependent on that principal claim and thus ceased to be necessary to determine; the discontinuance was bona fide and not prejudicial, therefore the discontinuance was allowed and the counterclaim struck out with nominal costs to the second defendant.
19 May 2022

WA-27NCC-71-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-27NCC-71-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-71-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where the Rules of Court contain no provision for discharge of security comprising a limitation fund (a lacuna), the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 r 4 to order discharge and return of a letter of undertaking where the plaintiff has settled claims, the advertisement and statutory limitation periods have expired, there are no outstanding or enforceable judgments, and no prejudice will be caused by discharge.
25 Jun 2021

Wong Eng Boon Low Seng Kai

Citation

MA-12ANCvC-16-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

MA-12ANCvC-16-12/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Order 21 Rule 4 did not authorize revival of a unilaterally discontinued action; The Kronprinz is distinguishable (consent discontinuance) and the court will not permit a party to approbate and reprobate where the defendant has been prejudiced by relying on the discontinuance and preparing for trial; plaintiff's delay and change of mind rendered revival inappropriate, therefore dismissal of the revival application and appeal was correct.
31 May 2021

PERKASA SUTERA SDN BHD KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & JKR MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-21C-4-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21C-4-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to discontinue with liberty to refile was allowed because the application was made before the hearing commenced and before the arbitrator had ruled on admissibility of the additional documents; the plaintiff remained dominus litis; the defendants failed to demonstrate any substantive prejudice beyond a tactical procedural advantage; in the interests of substantive justice the plaintiff may refile but subject to costs and conditions.
18 Apr 2021

GOH YONG 1. GOH KWANG 2. GOH TEE

Citation

JB-22NCVC-74-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCVC-74-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 21 to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim but refused liberty to file afresh and ordered costs for the defendants because the defendants were dominus litis and would be prejudiced by permitting the plaintiff to refile and alter the claim after seeing the defendants' position; costs could not compensate the prejudice of losing the advantage obtained.
25 Jun 2020

SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA 1. ) CIMB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 2. ) ERNST & YOUNG (didakwa sebagai sebuah firma) 3. ) SJ ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (dalam likuidasi)

Citation

22NCC-422-03/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-422-03/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

O.21 r.3(1) confers a wide discretion enabling the High Court to grant leave to discontinue on terms that preserve and bind antecedent orders and protect the advantages obtained in prior litigation; where a non‑party has actively participated in those proceedings it may be bound by such terms; consequently the court allowed discontinuance of Suit 422 on terms requiring EY to file a fresh discovery application in Suit 431 within 30 days with the Federal Court Order in Suit 422 to be binding on that application and the SC to stand as intervener, and refused to permit the SC to relitigate the di…