Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 18 rule 19 striking out

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2024

Kogilavani a/p Radan Krishnan Marksmen Security Services Sdn Bhd

Citation

BL-12A-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12A-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the appellant's pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the respondent security company because no specific statutory provision was pleaded for a breach of statutory duty and the elements of a tort of negligence against the respondent were not established (primary duty rested with the occupier/employer); the proposed amendment was too late; therefore striking out the claim against the respondent was justified and the Sessions Court decision was upheld.
7 Feb 2024

1. ) CHEN KEAN KEONG 2. ) CHEEN LOOI BENG 1. ) CHEN YOOK YIN 2. ) KOPERASI TUNAS MUDA SUNGAI ARA BERHAD

Citation

PA-22NCVC-205-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-205-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged fraud by at least 16.05.2013 (police report) and 22.07.2013 (demand notice); the writ filed on 24.09.2019 was therefore outside the six‑year limitation under s6 read with s29 Limitation Act 1953. Cooperative membership does not constitute trust property under the cooperative bylaws, so s22(1) does not save the claims. The claims against Defendant Two (and consequentially Defendant One) were struck out as time‑barred and an abuse of process; costs RM1500 awarded to D2.
22 Feb 2023

Universiti Putra Malaysia 1. ) Tang Kim San 2. ) Law Wai Kwan 3. ) Khong Woon Sam

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-84-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-84-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The breach occurred in October 2004 when the first defendant failed to report for duty; therefore the six-year limitation period under s.6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 expired in October 2010; the suit filed in 2022 was plainly time-barred and the Sessions Court correctly struck out the claim under O.18 r.19; the High Court upheld that decision and dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.
20 Jan 2023

SARASWATHI A/P NADARAJAN K.H KHOON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12A-25-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12A-25-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defence was struck out because on the face of the pleadings it was plain and obvious that (1) there was no contractual term requiring Architect's Certificates to support progress bills, (2) the Defendant admitted and made payments (including after service of the writ) which constitute admissions of liability, and (3) estoppel in favour of the Defendant was not established; accordingly the Order 18 r 19 summary procedure was properly applied and the Sessions Court's striking out and judgment against the Defendant was affirmed.
14 Jul 2022

Pang Kwai Chee Tetuan ZI & Associates

Citation

BA-12A-26-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-26-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned letter was written to the Judge in connection with ongoing court proceedings and is therefore protected by absolute privilege; because absolute privilege renders any defamation claim based on that communication obviously unsustainable, the Plaintiff's writ and statement of claim must be struck out under O.18 r.19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
23 Mar 2022

SRI SIVA SARAVANAKUMAR AFFIN BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-188-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-188-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Sessions Court striking out because there were triable issues of fact—notably whether the alleged defects were discoverable on inspection—so the exclusion clauses and Section 7(2) could not be taken as a matter of law to defeat the claim; therefore striking out was inappropriate and the matter must proceed to trial.
30 Aug 2021

1. ) RAMASAMY a/l MUTHUSAMY (NRIC NO: 631126-08-5259) 2. ) INDRA GHANDI a/p ELAYAPPAN (NRIC NO: 660114-08-5174) 1. ) SINAR MUDAH SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 748474-H) 2. ) TAN CHEANG HUAT (NRIC NO: 570301-07-6143)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-306-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-306-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Even assuming the challenged 15-6-2015 resolution was fraudulent, that would not affect the validity of the Final Settlement Agreement which was executed on 23-4-2015 by the only two directors then empowered to bind the company; the alleged fraud therefore would not have vitiated the prior Court of Appeal judgment and the plaintiffs' claim is obviously unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 r19.
5 Aug 2021

1. Indran a/l Karuppiah [No. K/P: 580801-10-6267] 2. Chitra Selvi a/p S. Vellasamy [No. K/P: 720419-14-5440] 1. RHB Bank Berhad [6171-M] 2. Poun Kok Hing [No. K/P: 910525-10-5167] 3. Pentadbir Tanah Hulu Langat

Citation

22NCVC-171-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-171-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim for a declaration that the auction and sale were void was struck out because challenges to decisions of the land administrator are matters for appeal under section 418 of the National Land Code and not by original declaratory suit; the plaintiffs' alternative claim for damages for breach of an assurance by the bank is not plainly unsustainable and may proceed.
23 Jun 2021

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA AVENUE K DAN K RESIDENCE (Others: 965/2018) LEONG LI NAR REALTY SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 144327-T) DAN 4 LAGI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-534-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-534-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 4th and 5th Defendants is struck out because the Plaintiff failed to plead or identify a valid common law or statutory duty owed by those defendants, failed to plead particulars or evidence to create triable issues, relied on statutory provisions that do not impose obligations on those individuals for the acts complained of, and did not allege facts justifying piercing the corporate veil; accordingly the suit as to those defendants was plainly unsustainable and subject to strike out under Order 18 Rule 19.
4 Mar 2020

Viva Venture PLT 1. Beh Joo Seong 2. Lee Lin Kwai

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-153-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-153-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 27 required an executed Guarantee Agreement within the notice period and did not operate as a deemed personal guarantee; there was no evidence of the required notification or execution of the Guarantee Agreement, plaintiff elected to proceed with the lease despite non-execution and thereby lost the contractual mechanism to enforce personal guarantees; a director’s signature on the Letter of Offer was in a representative capacity and did not bind him personally; the claim against the directors disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out under Order 18 r 19 KKM 20…