Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 18 rule 19 roc

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2024

VIGNA RAJ A/L SITHAMPARANATHAN 1. ) METRO ELDERCARE SDN BHD 2. ) RAMESH SIVARAJ A/L RAJASINGAM CHELLIAH

Citation

BA-22NCvC-469-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-469-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the claim was improperly instituted in the plaintiff's personal name contrary to mandatory provisions ss.347-348 Companies Act 2016; permitting the proposed amendment would effect a vertical substitution altering the character of the suit, circumvent statutory time limits and prejudice defendants; therefore the claim constituted an abuse of court process and was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 r19 ROC; amendment application was dismissed.
7 Aug 2024

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

Citation

PA-12A-45-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12A-45-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant's defence and counterclaim were summarily struck out because, on the face of the pleadings and available affidavit evidence, they disclosed no reasonable defence or cause of action and were obviously unsustainable: defendant failed to substantiate her factual assertions, did not contest the progress bill in the pleadings or in a timely manner, the LOA did not require independent certification of progress bills, and defendant's counterclaim sought recovery caused by her own breach, amounting to an abuse of process.
14 Mar 2024

Hong Sheng Engineering Sdn Bhd Multilink Resources Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-11ANCC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11ANCC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counterclaim was not struck out because it was not plainly or obviously unsustainable on its face; the pleadings disclose a possible cause of action (goods not of merchantable quality/fit for purpose) and disputed factual issues (including alleged RM13,000 materials) require trial-level testing; balance of justice favoured allowing the counterclaim to proceed; therefore the Magistrates Court's striking out order was set aside and the matter remitted for case management.
4 Jan 2023

Ruppanlangi Saridewi Kalawa (mendakwa melalui ibu dan wakil litigasinya, Ratna Dewi Lumombong) 1. ) Kajang Specialist Hospital Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Dr Balakrishnan A/L P Subramaniam

Citation

BA-22NCvC-131-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-131-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

s.24 of the Limitation Act 1953 applies only where the person was already under a disability (infant or of unsound mind) at the time the right of action accrued; it does not apply where the disability (unsound mind) was caused by the wrong after accrual. The plaintiff's cause of action accrued on 6.3.2011, the six-year limitation expired in March 2017, the suit was filed in March 2022 and is therefore time-barred; strike out is warranted.
17 Jun 2022

SIDDIQUE HOSSEN, sebagai bapa dan benefisiari sah kepada OSMAN GANI, simati 1. ) Zaidi Bin Mohammed @ Mamat 2. ) HAMAJAYA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 3. ) ZD INDAH CONSTRUCTION

Citation

RA-12AC-1-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-12AC-1-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because disputed facts existed and defendants produced earlier affidavits and agreement undermining plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff’s solicitor improperly deposed a contested affidavit without proving a warrant to act; plaintiff failed to rebut documents L-1 and L-2 or to demonstrate authority, therefore the claim was plainly unsustainable and constituted an abuse of process and was struck out under Order 18 r.19; costs awarded to defendants.
30 Nov 2021

EMBUN KARISMA RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD [COMPANY NO. 737690-W] NAGARAJU A/L VENGADASALU [NRIC NO. 750719-01-7229]

Citation

JA-22NCVC-179-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-179-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the defendant filed it with inordinate delay without a satisfactory explanation and because the defence raised a real and central dispute of fact (that the monies were advanced by a third party, Muthusamy, not the plaintiff), making the claim not obviously unsustainable and inappropriate for summary disposal; additionally, s10OA did not operate to render the plaintiff an illegal moneylender on the facts before the court.
1 Nov 2021

TAI LEE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 437543-A) CHEN FUN SING @ CHEONG FUN SING

Citation

JB-22NCVC-20-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCVC-20-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPA was not concluded because the Defendant did not sign or communicate acceptance and the purported consideration (cheque for RM171,452) was not cashed or delivered as value; therefore no enforceable contract existed and the writ had no reasonable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of process, warranting striking out under Order 18 r 19.
14 Jan 2021

UNI CONSTRUCTION & REALTY SDN BHD 1. ) TERSAIM LALL 2. ) ANDREW LALL 3. ) KAREN LALL 4. ) INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION & CIVIL ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-474-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-474-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike‑out application was dismissed because the Statement of Claim disclosed a viable cause of action in unjust enrichment distinct from the prior SP Suit; res judicata did not apply as the earlier interlocutory striking out did not decide restitution claims; the cause of action accrued on 6.4.2017 (date of the High Court decision) and the claim was within the limitation period (including Covid‑19 Act extension where relevant); privity of contract was not required and Plaintiff had locus standi; costs of RM3,000 awarded to Plaintiff.
17 Dec 2020

NORDIN BIN SIDIN [BERNIAGA ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA ARNAB PELANGI ENTERPRISE (JM0611457-T)] 1. MOHAMED KHALED BIN NORDIN 2. KERAJAAN NEGERI JOHOR 3. PUJB RETAIL SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT : 1102748-H] 4. MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT

Citation

JA-21NCvC-15-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-15-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out succeeded because the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action: MARA owed no duty beyond the financing terms, disbursement complied with the facility documentation, the plaintiff had signed and acted upon the documents and failed to demonstrate manifest error in the accounts, and the plaintiff's conduct estopped him from disputing the claim; the claim was obviously unsustainable and struck out.
3 Jun 2020

1. HASSAN BIN JAMALUDIN (NO. K/P: 491213-02-5201) 2. NASRIAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 560116-07-5190) .... - 1. OTHMAN BIN AHMAD (NO. K/P: 480422-02-5351) 2. AMONA PERMODALAN HOLDINGS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 280648-H) 3. AMONA CONSOLIDATED HOLD

Citation

WA-22NCC-315-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-315-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs' claim was struck out because it was a repetitive third action raising matters that could and should have been raised earlier (res judicata/abuse of process), the causes of action arose in 1996–1999 and are time‑barred under the Limitation Act, and plaintiffs had acquiesced to the conduct (laches); no special circumstances justified permitting relitigation and summary dismissal under Order 18 r 19 was appropriate.