Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 18 rule 19 rules of court 2012

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

KCSB KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 1. ) MENTERI PERTAHANAN 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff's pleadings disclose recognised causes of action and substantial disputes of fact and law exist which cannot be resolved on affidavit at the interlocutory stage; therefore it is not plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed and the strike-out jurisdiction should not be exercised.
8 Oct 2025

PUNITHA A/P PADATHALY 1. ) SALAM ALLIANCE SDN BHD 2. ) DR.MOHD IQBAL BIN MOHD ARBA

Citation

BA-23NCvC-40-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-40-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applications to strike out were dismissed because the limitation defence and causation/confidentiality/vicarious liability allegations raise bona fide, fact‑sensitive triable issues (including applicability of Section 29 concealment) that cannot be resolved on affidavit; the Statement of Claim on its face discloses a tenable cause of action and the matters require oral evidence and expert proof.
22 Sept 2025

1. ) SITI NURSHAFIKAH BINTI ZULKIFLI 2. ) MUHAMMAD AL-RASYIDIN BIN MAT ANAFI 1. ) MOHAMAD AZRUL BIN MOHD LOKMAN 2. ) HERN YI ANG ENTERPRISE

Citation

JA-12A-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed because section 28(1)(c) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964, as amended by the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2022, bars appeals to the High Court against subordinate court decisions dismissing applications to strike out pleadings; the amendment applies and removes the High Court's jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal, therefore the appeal is dismissed in limine.
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 wording of section 68(1)(f) CJA 1964 is clear and limited to situations where the High Court dismisses an application to strike out a writ or pleading under Order 18 r19 ROC 2012; it does not extend to refusals of applications under Order 14A or Order 33. Applications under Order 14A/33 that raise legal issues capable of finally disposing of parties' rights (eg res judicata, Section 6A Limitation Act) remain appealable; accordingly, the respondent's motion to strike out this appeal under s68(1)(f) is without merit and should be dismissed with costs (minority view).
29 Nov 2024

1. ) Shahrizat, Rashid & Lee 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Kartina Binti Arshad 4. ) Elizabeth Shanti A/P Frank Louis XXXX

Citation

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2255-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2255-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellants failed to show the Plaintiffs' claim was obviously unsustainable; there are disputed material facts (including admissions in a statutory declaration, cheque signatures and competing accounts) that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence and therefore Suit 199 must proceed to trial; consequently the strike out appeals lacked merit and are dismissed.
28 Nov 2024

CHEW KEA SEW 1. ) KALIDAS A/L KOMARAWELO 2. ) KASAEVAN A/L MANOHARAN

Citation

PA-22NCvC-152-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-152-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to strike out was dismissed because it would be unjust to strike out the defence solely for non-compliance in circumstances where the High Court and Court of Appeal had already determined the matter unsuitable for summary disposal and that serious triable issues exist; the application amounted to abuse of process and the court exercised discretion to dismiss it and strike out the Plaintiff's writ and statement of claim for failure to be ready for trial, with liberty to re-file.
29 Aug 2022

AGESON BERHAD (SEBELUMNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI PRINSIPTEK CORPORATION BERHAD) 1. ) LIM PANG KIAM 2. ) YAP CHEE KHENG 3. ) PNL CAPITAL SDN BHD 4. ) PNL BUSINESS SERVICES SDN BHD 5. ) PNL TRADING SDN BHD 6. ) SUBANG INDUSTRY PARK SDN BHD 7. ) TIA

Citation

WA-23NCvC-71-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-71-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court refused to strike out the plaintiff's Statement of Claim (enclosures 23 and 24) because on the pleadings a reasonable cause of action could be discerned and the matters of absolute privilege, defamatory meaning and abuse of process raised disputed factual and legal issues that require full trial and viva voce evidence; the summary power under O.18 r.19 RC 2012 is not appropriate absent a plain and obvious lack of merit.
12 Apr 2022

DEEPAK JAIKISHAN A/L JAIKISHAN REWACHAND TAN YOOK PENG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-609-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-609-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out because the plaintiff lacked locus to assert rights belonging to his former company, failed to plead particulars of the alleged conspiracy, and did not plead any statutory exception to Suntrack's indefeasible registered title, such that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Order 18 r.19.
25 Jan 2022

DARWINA BINTI AB RAHMAN HYM ALLIANCE SDN BHD & ANOR

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-280-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-280-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the appellant's pleaded misrepresentation in tort and the allegation that the 2nd Defendant was the alter ego of the 1st Defendant raised triable issues which could not be fairly resolved on a strike out application; the matter requires oral evidence and a full trial.
3 Jun 2021

CHAN CHEE WING (NRIC No.: 620719-10-6031) 1. ROBERT YEOW TOW HOCK 2. TAN CHENG HONG Tan Cheng Hong@ Tan Chin Hong 3. NG KOOI YING [sued as the Administrator of the estate of Tan Siew Ling (NRIC No : 650715-07-5168)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-274-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-274-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st Defendant's interlocutory application was dismissed because the plaintiff was not a party or in privity to the earlier proceedings so res judicata did not apply, the allegations of fraud and conspiracy raised serious disputed facts that could not be determined summarily on affidavit and therefore were unsuitable for disposal under Order 14A, Order 18 r19 or Order 33 r2; however, to avoid duplicity and for convenience the court exercised Order 57 r1 to transfer the suit to the court hearing the related suit against CIMB Bank.