Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 18 rule 19 roc 2012

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

1. ) GANESAN A/L NARAYANASAMY 2. ) KALIAMAH A/P PERUMAL 1. ) KASTURI A/P MOHANADAS 2. ) SAKTHIVEL NAGALINGAM 3. ) JOSEPH A/L SEBESTIAN 4. ) TETUAN AMRAN JOSEPH, CHAN & CO 5. ) SATHIAKUMAR A/L SELVANATHAN

Citation

AA-22NCvC-84-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-84-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out fails because the defendants relied on Order 18 r19(1)(d) without affidavit evidence, the statement of claim on its face discloses a reasonable cause of action based on pleaded fraud, the plaintiffs have since filed and served the required probate citation curing the procedural lapse, and the non-compliance amounts only to a technical irregularity which causes no shown prejudice; under ROC 2012 the court must prioritise substantive justice and therefore dismiss the strike out application.
16 Jan 2026

NUR NATASHA MOHAMED ZULKARNAIN 1. ) MOHD AIMAN BIN YUSOF PRIESTER 2. ) RAHMAH BINTI AHMED

Citation

BC-A53F-2-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BC-A53F-2-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Paragraph 28(a) of the statement of claim (claim relating to betrothal/breach of promise to marry) is struck out because matters of betrothal fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts under Article 121(1A), the State List and Selangor enactments; the defamation claim disclosed the necessary elements and is prima facie triable and therefore remains; costs of RM2,000 awarded to defendants.
27 May 2025

3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE

Citation

B-02(IM)(C)-1479-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(C)-1479-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that an Order 14A dismissal is in substance a summary judgment/striking out type interlocutory decision within the ambit of s68(1)(e) and (f) CJA 1964; because the suit was commenced after the statutory cut‑off the new bars apply and the appeal is therefore incompetent and must be struck out.
28 Feb 2025

1. ) Puncak Haruman Sdn Bhd 2. ) Elit Binaraya Sdn Bhd 3. ) Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Ali 1. ) JW Development Sdn Bhd 2. ) Syarikat Bamas Enterprise Sdn Bhd 3. ) Lee Kah Koon 4. ) Abdul Wahab Bin Abdullah 5. ) Zulkarnain bin Omar

Citation

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to plead fresh evidence or establish manifest illegality, lack of jurisdiction or actual fraud sufficient to impeach the prior Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment; their claims revive issues already litigated (res judicata) and constitute an abuse of process. Accordingly the action against the 1st defendant is struck out under Order 33/Order 18 and the 1st defendant's counterclaim succeeds in part: plaintiffs declared vexatious and restrained; damages and exemplary damages to be assessed; costs on indemnity basis.
29 Apr 2024

1. ) VITAL LIVING EMPIRE SDN BHD 2. ) SASHITHERAN A/L KANAGASABAPATHI 3. ) VIGNESWARAN A/L AH WALI 1. ) SATIS KUMAR 2. ) NGEOW CHOW YING (Defendant Sued as a Firm Practicing under the Firm Name & Style of Ngeow & Tan Advocates & Solicitors)

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-123-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-123-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court decision to strike out the Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012 because the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action against D2, D3 and D4: solicitors were acting for their client D1 and not parties to the tenancy contract (privity bar), settlement negotiations were not concluded into a binding contract, and D4 was not a partner at the relevant time; therefore the appeal was dismissed with costs.
28 Mar 2022

NURUL SHAFIKA BINTI ABDULLAH (970415-07-5774) 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA 2. ) Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang 3. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG

Citation

PA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that Respondent 3's strike‑out application (Lampiran 21) was not meritorious because the issues raised had been considered at the leave stage and the matter was not a plain and obvious case fit for summary dismissal; the substantive issues should be heard rather than disposed of on affidavit alone. Consequently Lampiran 21 was rejected. The substantive application (Lampiran 12) was later withdrawn by the applicant, rendering the dispute academic, and the Court struck/cancelled both Lampiran 12 and Lampiran 21 without costs.
28 Dec 2021

22NCVC-04-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

22NCVC-04-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-04-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 29/10/2019 judgment was a regular inter partes final judgment; Order 42 r.13 cannot be used to set aside a judgment decided on the merits by another High Court of concurrent jurisdiction; the proper remedy was appeal and not reopening the matter in the same court; accordingly Enclosure 82 is struck out and the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the judgment by sale of the Defendant's undivided 2/3 share under Enclosure 67.
28 Apr 2020

1.ABEO INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD 2.ABEO INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 3.MICHAEL LIM HEONG HAI TIA AND NOORDIN SOLUTIONS PTE LTD

Citation

JA-12A-NCVC-132-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-NCVC-132-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The striking out application was defective because it cumulatively pleaded multiple limbs of O.18 r.19 and was not curable; the Plaintiff disclosed a reasonable cause of action supported by admissions in Defences and contradictions in defendants' affidavits; lack of particulars of fraud should be remedied by seeking further particulars rather than striking out; defendants had submitted to jurisdiction by filing defences, so jurisdiction challenge was waived. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the striking out application properly refused.
12 Dec 2019

QQ Trading Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 1195272) Hong Cheng Seafood Supplies Sd. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 885400-M)

Citation

AB-22NCC-3-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-22NCC-3-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was refused and the strike-out application dismissed because the defence and counterclaim disclose triable issues of fact (quality, merchantability, contractual terms, alleged failure of consideration and who breached first) that cannot be resolved on affidavits and require oral evidence and cross-examination; therefore the matters must proceed to trial.