Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out (order 18 rule 19)

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2025

MOK CHIA WU 1. ) CHUA CHEE WEAE 2. ) CHUA CHEE LIANG

Citation

JA-22NCvC-141-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-141-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the face of the pleadings the OTP was signed only by the 1st defendant and there were no pleaded material facts establishing any legal mechanism (eg valid agency, ratification or other doctrine) to bind the 2nd defendant; because no evidence is admissible to cure that pleading defect under Order 18 r 19(2), the claim against the 2nd defendant was plainly and obviously unsustainable and must be struck out.
2 Dec 2022

XXXX 1. ) JERBIE TIMTIM ACASIO 2. ) JUNIORSTATION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-274-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-274-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the civil claim because the alleged torts were the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings and the civil action amounted to a collateral attack; the plaintiff failed to plead a reasonable cause of action at this stage and the medical reports described the allegation as 'alleged sodomy' which must be conclusively determined in the criminal court before civil relief is entertained.
27 May 2021

1. KHEE SAN BERHAD 2. KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD

Citation

22NCC-396-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-396-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Quincecare duty is of limited application and is generally confined to situations where the bank acts as agent over a customer's funds (eg cheque payments), not to drawdowns under a credit facility such as a bankers acceptance; a bank has no duty to authenticate or investigate third‑party commercial documents presented for drawdown absent being put on inquiry by reasonable grounds of fraud; the Defendant complied with Bank Negara BA Guidelines; accordingly the Plaintiffs' claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment o…
5 Apr 2021

ARMADA PETROLEUM SDN BHD ALAM MARITIM (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-814-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-814-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that Section 7 of the COVID‑19 Act 2020 does not bar enforcement of payment for contractual obligations already performed; the Defendant's pandemic‑related financial hardship and late allegation of defective work were insufficient defenses, therefore summary judgment was proper for the Plaintiff.
25 Mar 2021

TAN YI WEN & ORS SEE LING HUI & 4 ORS

Citation

WA-12ANCC-6-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-6-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the pleadings on their face disclose a reasonable cause of action and are not obviously unsustainable; the involvement of the Defendants and the particulars of alleged fraud raise issues fit for trial and therefore the Sessions Court judge did not err in dismissing the strike-out application.
25 Feb 2021

HAMBALI BIN HASSAN 1. ) NUR ZAMIRUL ASWINA BINTI NAZIR 2. ) ABD WAHAB BIN ISMAIL

Citation

na-22ncvc-34-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

na-22ncvc-34-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the defendants' Order 18 Rule 19 application and struck out the writ and statement of claim because the dispute concerned harta sepencarian between Muslim ex‑spouses and thus falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court; parallel Syariah proceedings rendered the civil claim duplicative and an abuse of process, making the civil action plain and obviously unsustainable.
27 Jan 2021

COSMOPOINT SDN BHD CHANDRAN A/L KASI

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-292-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-292-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found clause 6 was breached by late notice but the plaintiff did not demonstrate any loss from the delay and by continuing to perform under the extension he elected to accept the breach; allegations of additional hours and the RM3,000 promise were unsupported by documents and therefore the claim constituted a frivolous, vexatious abuse of process; accordingly the defendant's strike-out application under Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 was allowed.
8 Dec 2020

TAN SRI HALIM SAAD 1. HOE LEONG CORPORATION LIMITED 2. KUAH GEOK KHIM 3. KUAH GEOK LIN 4. SETINGGI HOLDINGS LIMITED 5. TEH TEONG LAY 6. CHAN YOK PENG

Citation

WA-22NCVC-420-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-420-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the plaintiff's claim is an in personam action for deception and fraudulent misrepresentation, not a mere contractual claim between other parties; therefore the case is not plainly hopeless under Order 18 Rule 19 and must proceed, so the defendants' strike out application was dismissed.
8 Oct 2020

NG YOW HENG KWA LAI KWAN DAN 3 LAGI

Citation

WA-22NCVC-40-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-40-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike-out application was dismissed because, although the tort of conversion does not apply to money, the plaintiff's unjust enrichment and restitution claims against the 4th Defendant raise triable issues dependent on proof of misrepresentation; therefore it is not plain and obvious that there is no cause of action under Order 18 Rule 19.
22 Sept 2020

AIRPLUS TRAVEL AND TOURS PVT LTD S5 SYSTEMS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22ncvc-92-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22ncvc-92-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the Defendant's strike out application and allowed the Plaintiff's amendment because SSM records supported the Plaintiff's standing, the pleaded cause of action arose from unpaid invoices in August 2017 (within the limitation period), and there are triable issues that cannot be resolved summarily; the proposed amendment did not change the character of the claim nor cause prejudice as it was made before trial.