Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out under o.18 r.19

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2023

1. ) MOHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN MOHAMMAD SAEED 2. ) MOHAMED NAZEM BIN ABDUL JAN @ ABDUL RAZAK 1. ) MAJLIS DAERAH CAMERON HIGHLANDS 2. ) Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

CB-21NCvC-5-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-21NCvC-5-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that designation of the road as a Federal Road does not automatically absolve the local authority of all duties of care; Plaintiffs pleaded a plausible cause of action grounded in s.101 Local Government Act and relevant duty of care principles (foreseeability, proximity, fairness). The claim was not plainly unsustainable and therefore the First Defendant's strike-out application under O.18 r.19 failed.
9 May 2023

Kerajaan Negeri Pahang SHARIFFA SABRINA BINTI SYED AKIL

Citation

CB-21CY-5-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-21CY-5-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the pleadings on their face disclose a reasonable cause of action and disputed issues of fact and law (truth, reference, malice, fair comment and reputation of the State) require full trial; additionally the State has statutory locus to sue under Act 359, so the claim is not plainly unsustainable.
14 Sept 2022

NG BOO ABA @ NG HOOI HONG TAN BOON PING PENCELAH 1. ) TAN GEIT KIANG 2. ) TAN WEI FAN

Citation

KB-A52-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-A52-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the ownership and locus standi issues are serious questions requiring full trial; the claims were not on the face of it frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and certain supporting affidavits were inadmissible but that did not justify striking out the entire claim.
27 Oct 2021

(1) DATO' SERI DR SUHAIME BIN SAAD (2) NATRAH BINTI MOHAMED MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-111-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-111-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the cause of action accrued on 3 April 2007 when the bank's letter definitively stated the RM9,999,999,999.00 hold amount was a system default and not the deceased's funds; the plaintiffs' claim was therefore statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 and, further, the claim was frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process amounting to a fishing expedition relying solely on an inquiry screen figure while ledger/available balances contradicted it. Consequently the strike-out application under O.18 r.19 succeeded and the action was dismissed with costs.
17 Oct 2021

ZAKIRON ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 297167-D) PADIBERAS NASIONAL BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 295514-U)

Citation

DA-22NCvC-62-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-62-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 2020 suit was struck out because it is duplicative of matters already raised in the 2017 proceedings and interlocutory amendment applications, constitutes an abuse of process being barred by res judicata and estoppel (including election/approbate and reprobate), and represents an impermissible attempt to circumvent appeal avenues; accordingly the defendant's Order 18 r.19 application succeeds.
20 Sept 2021

AZIRA BINTI MOHD AB. GHANI [NO. K/P: 810904-03-5076] 1. MUHAMMAD ZUHDI BIN MOHAMAD NOR (NO. K/P: 820628-03-5289) sebagai pemilik tunggal Kepada D Planet Construction & Trading (No. Pendaftaran: KT0357638-V) 2. LEMBAGA PEMBIAYAAN PERUMAHAN S

Citation

DA-21NCVC-16-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCVC-16-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the writ and statement of claim against Defendant 2 because plaintiff disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the financier: LPPSA's role was contractual as financier under a BBA facility and it owed no duty to verify construction or police the developer absent clear notice; relief sought conflicted with the Sale/Financing Agreement and statutory scheme. The court struck out claims against Defendants 3 and 4 because they were not parties to the contract and owed no duty of care to plaintiff; any negligence claim against the valuer was time‑barred under Public Auth…
3 May 2021

1. BAYLAND SDN. BHD. 2. BUKIT KIARA PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. PAULUS DE KRUIJFF

Citation

WA-22IP-77-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-77-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counter-claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process were not obviously unsustainable on the face of the pleadings; abuse of process does not require prior termination or proof of malice and malicious prosecution need not be struck out at this stage because whether it fits within the limited 'special cases' exception requires trial evidence; accordingly the strike-out application failed.
26 Apr 2021

ASPALELA BINTI RAMLY DR. TAWFIQUE HASAN CHOWDHURY

Citation

12A-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

12A-13-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim was defective because it reproduced the entire letter without identifying the specific words or pleading the defamatory meanings; consequently it did not disclose a prima facie cause of action in defamation and warranted striking out; further, the letter on its face was an expression of opinion by a director/shareholder about a proposed appointment and the Defendant was entitled to express such views, reinforcing that the pleadings were insufficient to sustain the claim.
16 Mar 2021

Shiva Kumar Day Allianz Life Insurance Malaysia Berhad & 1 Lagi

Citation

WA-22NCC-415-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-415-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that under the policies liability for TPD accrued from the commencement of disability and the Plaintiff’s disability and claim submission dates meant the cause of action arose well before the writ; the claims were therefore statute-barred under Limitation Act s6(1)(a); s29 did not postpone limitation because fraud/forgery allegations were bare, unsupported by police report or the alleged recording, and thus the claims were plainly unsustainable and properly struck out under O.18 r.19.
23 Sept 2020

CHIA CHEW MENG [NO. K/P: 750813-01-5561/A3128189] Trading in the name and style of HENG MENG AUTO PARTS TRADING (BUSINESS NO.: JM 0496113-P) 1. HASSAN BIN MUDA 2. SITI AFFAH BINTI TAHIR 3. RINA LAILY BT SAPARI

Citation

JB-21NCVC-14-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-21NCVC-14-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 33 was allowed and the writ action struck out because the claim was procedurally defective insofar as the proper mode to challenge the public authority's decision was judicial review, and on the merits the proceedings were barred by res judicata/issue estoppel and constituted an abuse of the court's process such that the claim was plainly unsustainable on its face.