Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out under order 18 rule 19

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

NYTREX GLOBAL SOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) DAQ WAREHOUSE SDN BHD 2. ) DAQ LOGISTICS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-39-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-39-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the Plaintiff's own pleadings the loss arose from storage for which D1 was responsible; the Statement of Claim contains no pleaded duty, breach or causation against D2 and invoices/payments do not establish liability; no pleaded facts justify piercing the corporate veil; therefore the claim against D2 discloses no reasonable cause of action and is struck out under Order 18 Rule 19.
13 Aug 2025

D2D BIZHUB SDN. BHD. 1. ) ALPHA FINTECH SDN. BHD. 2. ) KOH CHEE SIONG BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK TEOH WENG BOON

Citation

WA-22NCC-641-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-641-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counterclaim against Teoh was struck out because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action: pleadings lacked particulars tying Teoh to any conspiracy or fraud, he had no privity or direct dealings with the counterclaimants and acted only as a conduit on D2D Bizhub's instructions; the claims sought to relitigate matters already rejected in prior summary judgment, were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, and therefore properly struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)(a)-(d) and the court's inherent jurisdiction (O.92 r.4).
3 Jul 2025

Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd. Nurhaslina Binti Mohamed Nor PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN 2. ) Dato' Hazri Bin Mohamed Nor 3. ) CREATE TEQ SDN BHD 4. ) Dato' Norhisam Bin Mohamed Nor 5. ) Nurhafizah Binti Mohamed Nor 6. ) Nurkhair

Citation

WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court struck out the Counterclaim as against the 1st, 3rd-5th and 7th-14th defendants (and separately against Mesriah) because the misappropriation claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to lack of locus standi and the counterclaimant's concessions, and the beneficial ownership claims were plainly and obviously unsustainable: funding from Dawama creates a presumption of resulting trust favoring Dawama, there is no contemporaneous evidence to rebut that presumption, the claims contradict established corporate law principles and suffer fatal non-joinder of Dawama; the pleadings…
3 Jul 2025

Symmid Corporation Sdn. Bhd. Nurhaslina Binti Mohamed Nor PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) MESRIAH BINTI KADIRAN 2. ) Dato' Hazri Bin Mohamed Nor 3. ) CREATE TEQ SDN BHD 4. ) Dato' Norhisam Bin Mohamed Nor 5. ) Nurhafizah Binti Mohamed Nor 6. ) Nurkhair

Citation

WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-811-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The misappropriation claims were struck out because the Counterclaim Plaintiff lacks locus standi and expressly conceded those claims and must pursue any company claim by way of a derivative action under s.347 Companies Act 2016; the beneficial ownership claims were struck out because the Counterclaim Plaintiff admitted the funding derived from Dawama which prima facie vests beneficial ownership in Dawama by resulting trust, the claim lacked contemporaneous documentary support and was contradicted by registered shareholders' affidavits, Dawama was a necessary party whose non-joinder was fatal…
26 Jun 2025

SAILCOTT (M) INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 1. ) XXXX 2. ) NAZIRAH BINTI HASNAN 3. ) PUSAT PERUBATAN UNIVERSITI MALAYA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-723-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-723-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because (a) no proximate relationship existed between bidder and procuring authority to found a duty of care in the tender evaluation process, (b) no fiduciary relationship or enforceable representation was established, and (c) commercial tendering rules ordinarily leave bidders to bear preparation costs; therefore the defendants' Order 18 Rule 19 application succeeded and the writ and statement of claim were struck out with costs awarded to the defendants.
14 Nov 2024

BA-21NCVC-29-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-21NCVC-29-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCVC-29-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Federal Court remitted the entire action to the High Court for full trial and did not decide the formulated legal questions; therefore the Court is bound to proceed with full trial on all issues (including those involving the 3rd Defendant) and the interlocutory strike-out application under Order 18 r19 is barred and must be dismissed; any disputes about the re-survey and plans are to be determined at trial or by statutory appeal under the National Land Code.
13 Oct 2023

ABDUL RAHMAN BIN ZAINOL ISKANDAR 1. ) ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 2. ) SITI NOR BAYAH BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) SITI MURNI SURAYA BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN 4. ) BUSU BINTI HUSSAIN 5. ) IRFAAN BIN MOHAMMED SUHAIMIN 6. ) NG CHEE LOONG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-59-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-59-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff lacks locus standi under section 108 Companies Act 2016 because he is not a member/shareholder, mortgagee, creditor or the administrator of the deceased's estate; accordingly the claim is obviously unsustainable and is struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 KM2012; further the dispute over inheritance is premature pending Syariah court determination for Muslim parties.
20 Jul 2023

MOHAMED IZMI BIN MD SAID 1. ) TETUAN ANAD & NORAINI (disaman sebagai sebuah firma) 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-124-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-124-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the Statement of Claim because the matters pleaded were substantially identical to issues already litigated and finally determined in Suit 440, the High Court appeal and bankruptcy proceedings; the claim was therefore barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of the court's process. The 1st Defendant, as solicitors, owed no duty to the Plaintiff and no sustainable cause of action was disclosed against them. The strike out applications (Enclosures 18 and 24) were allowed with costs.
31 May 2023

SAYYID SHAH BIN ABDULLAH 1. ) NG SEING LIONG 2. ) NG CHOON JIN 3. ) SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-68-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-68-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons under Section 393 was struck out because the complaint about the proposed sale price constituted a matter that properly belonged to the earlier proceedings challenging the receivers' powers and could and should have been raised then; allowing the new action would permit impermissible splitting of causes and defeat the finality of litigation, therefore the defendants' strike‑out applications succeed under the wider doctrine of res judicata and Order 18 r19.
23 Feb 2023

1. ) XXXX 2. ) SHIRIN BINTI MOBARAK AHMAD 1. ) JAMILAH BINTI SHEIKH DAUD 2. ) DR.ABDUL RAHIMAN BIN DATUK A.S. DAWOOD 3. ) MOHAMED IBRAHIM BIN DATUK A.S. DAWOOD 4. ) NASEEM BINTI MOHAMED ABDULLA 5. ) PASLA HOLDINGS SDN.BHD. 6. ) AZINAL SDN.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-629-11/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim was dismissed because the pleadings allege fraud and breach of trust which raise serious issues fit to be tried; the claim is not plainly and obviously unsustainable and amendment to the Statement of Claim was allowed; therefore the matter must proceed to trial and the strike out power under Order 18 Rule 19 should not be exercised.