27 May 2025
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.
14 Mar 2025
The application under Order 14A/Order 33 was dismissed because material disputes of fact are interwoven with the legal issues such that the questions are unsuitable for determination without a full trial; admissions by the 2nd Defendant do not automatically bind the other defendants or the firm; accordingly summary disposal was unjust and costs were awarded in the cause.
28 Feb 2025
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.
19 Jun 2024
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the questions posed under Order 14A and Order 33 involved disputed facts (causation, nature of works and quantum) and required trial evidence (including possibly the contractor and experts); therefore the Sessions Court erred in using summary procedures to strike out the claim and effectively grant the counterclaim. The Sessions Court's order dated 29.12.2020 was set aside and the matter was remitted for case management and progression to trial.