Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misjoinder

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2025

1. ) SHASHI KUMAR A/L SHANMUGAM 2. ) NG KIM HO 3. ) BOBBY ANAK WILLIAM 4. ) CHAN TUCK LOONG 5. ) SRI RAMESH A/L V.KANNAN 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 2. ) Peguam Negara Malaysia

Citation

W-01(IM)-562-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)-562-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court erred by failing to apply the low threshold test for ex parte leave; the appellants satisfied the prima facie standard and the JRA was not frivolous or vexatious; reliance on Sundra Rajoo was misplaced because that case dealt with merits after leave had been granted; misjoinder of the IGP is not fatal under Order 15 r 6(1) and the overriding objective requires leave to be granted and the matter remitted for substantive hearing.
24 Sept 2024

SHARIPAH MARHAINI BINTI SYED ALI 1. ) MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 2. ) Aznan Bin Haji Hassan (dalam kapasitinya sebagai Setiausaha Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (“MBPJ”)

Citation

BA-25-62-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-62-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The misjoinder application was dismissed and the second respondent was ordered to remain a party because, although he may not have made the impugned decision, he may be affected by the judicial review outcome and is therefore entitled to be heard; the court exercises its discretion in the interest of justice to retain him as a party.
10 Jun 2024

BASRI BIN HUSIN 1. ) UNIVERSITI MALAYA 2. ) PUSAT PERUBATAN UNIVERSITI MALAYA 3. ) DR. SHARIFAH FARIDAH BT SYED OMAR 4. ) DR. PREMILA ARUL A/P ARUMUGAM 5. ) DR. ABINASH KAUR A/P KARAM SINGH 6. ) DR. LEE CHEE KEAN 7. ) DR. RAVINDRAN A/L KARU

Citation

WA-22NCvC-741-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-741-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff's claims were time‑barred under section 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 because the alleged negligent acts primarily occurred in November 2014 and the writ was filed on 12/11/2020 (approximately 72 months later) with no satisfactory explanation for delay; the Defendants are public authorities or their employees and PAPA's 36‑month limit is mandatory, therefore the claim was dismissed.
1 Dec 2023

Munir Bin Hashim 1. ) Dr Liew Nyoke San 2. ) Kajang Plaza Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 3. ) Dr Mohd Yazid Bin Bajuri 4. ) Dr Badrul Akmal Hisham Bin Md Yusoff 5. ) Dr Mohd Shahir Bin Anuar 6. ) UKM Kesihatan Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCvC-836-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-836-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties because treatments were provided at different times by different doctors at separate hospitals which are distinct entities and there was no common question of law or fact nor same transaction; accordingly the court struck out the claims against the 3rd to 6th Defendants with liberty to file afresh, directed the Plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to limit claims to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and for the Plaintiff's refusal to comply (appeal not being an automatic stay) the court struck out the claims against the 1st and…
11 Nov 2022

IPI SDN BHD 1. ) IPI GRAPHIC SYSTEMS SDN BHD 2. ) HENTRY VIENSION A/L A. MUNIANDY 3. ) TAN LAY KAH 4. ) DANIEL A/L MUTHUSAMY 5. ) CHONG HIN YOON

Citation

BL-22NCvC-8-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-8-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claims against defendants 2–5 were struck out because the statement of claim failed to plead facts sufficient to hold the directors personally liable or to justify lifting the corporate veil; plaintiffs attempted to introduce essential factual allegations via affidavit rather than pleadings; emails relied on did not prima facie show mala fide conduct; the pleaded case against those defendants disclosed no sustainable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process, justifying strike out under Order 18 r19(1)(b),(c) and (d).
13 Jun 2022

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Pendaftar Hak Milik Tanah Negeri Selangor 3. ) Pengarah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor

Citation

21NCVC-22-06/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

21NCVC-22-06/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim is dismissed: the 1st and 3rd Defendants were wrongly cited; the 2nd Defendant breached a duty by removing the 1st Plaintiff's caveat without a specific order directed at that caveat, but the 1st Plaintiff failed to prove that any asserted losses were caused by that breach or to prove quantum; accordingly the plaintiffs' negligence claim fails and the action is dismissed with costs to defendants.
25 May 2022

SANTOKH SINGH A/L AMAR SINGH 1. ) Kamala Remedios Alma A/p S.kulasegram 2. ) KUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-690-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-690-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 2nd Defendant because the dispute is between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant over ownership; the 2nd Defendant, as chargee, is not privy to that private arrangement and its joinder is unnecessary, therefore the 2nd Defendant’s application to strike out and to remove as party succeeds.
11 Nov 2021

1. APPSMITHS SDN BHD 2..WELL INTEGRITY SERVICES LTD 3. LARRY MICHAEL PEACOCK 4. DANIEL KENNETH DEES 1. JASON KOK CHIN HWA 2. KOK WEI CHUEN 3. GRIT ENERGY SDN BHD 4. TAI CREST RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-788-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-788-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim disclosed multiple distinct causes of action and misjoinder of parties without leave; the plaintiffs refused the Court's direction to limit the trial to the fiduciary breach claim; under Order 34 Rule 1 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction the claim amounted to an abuse of process and was struck out with costs of RM3,000.
25 Feb 2021

MUSA BIN HASSAN & MOHAMMAD HAMAN PHAN SOW SUN

Citation

wa-23cy-58-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

wa-23cy-58-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The articles alleged against each plaintiff were different and did not raise common questions of fact nor arise from the same transaction or series of transactions; therefore joinder constituted misjoinder and the action was struck out with liberty to file afresh. Further, claims concerning the Fire Department cannot be pursued in the individual name of the 2nd plaintiff and should be brought by the Fire Department or Government of Malaysia.
31 Jan 2020

LIM WEN LONG (NRIC. No.: 760301-01-5807) 1. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 2. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 3. KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-13-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-13-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The restriction order was lawfully made because the respondent satisfied the legal and evidential burden by proving compliance with the five mandatory procedural requirements under DDSPMA (police investigation report, submission to inquiry officer and Minister, inquiry by inquiry officer, inquiry report, Minister's consideration of both reports); s 11C(1) precludes review of the Minister's discretionary satisfaction or alleged mechanical decision-making, and misjoinder of the Ministry did not invalidate the proceedings under O15 r6 RC; accordingly the substantive judicial review application w…