Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out under order 18 r19

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2024

DESABINA INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. 1. ) DATO T. PUTERA BIN T. AWANG 2. ) CATURAN KLASIK SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-493-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-493-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the extended doctrine of res judicata applied because the substance and facts (the Award Letter and related dealings) were the same and could and should have been raised in the earlier Kuala Terengganu proceedings which had finally determined the validity of the Award Letter; accordingly the writ and statement of claim were an abuse of process and were struck out under Order 18 r19(1)(d).
20 Aug 2024

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD TETUAN CHONG + KHENG HOE

Citation

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the committal proceedings were a premature and abusive use of process because the core factual issue (service of invoices) had been substantively and finally decided in the earlier suit (20 August 2024) and remains subject to appeal; therefore the committal founded on alleged false affidavit could not proceed. The judicial management moratorium under s.410 does not bar committal per se but is irrelevant where the alleged contempt is premised on a matter already final. Applications to set aside the committal proceedings were allowed and indemnity costs were refused; costs awarde…
15 Jul 2022

ZAWAHID BINTI CHE AMAT 1. ) KAWASAN PEMBANGUNAN PERTANIAN BERSEPADU BAHAGIAN KERIAN 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERTANIAN DAN INDUSTRI MAKANAN 3. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-B51-2-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B51-2-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court struck out the writ and statement of claim because the plaintiff's claim in tort against public authorities failed to comply with statutory requirements (failure to join the responsible government officer under Government Proceedings Act 1956 ss.5-6), was time-barred under Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 s.2(a) (filed beyond 36 months), contained an inadmissible affidavit by the solicitor contrary to Order 41 r.5, and on the face of the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action or amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly the defendants' Order 18 r.19 application w…
12 Jan 2022

1. ) RAUB MINING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SDN BHD 2. ) RAUB OIL MILL SDN BHD Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2009-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2009-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Claims against the 2nd to 11th defendants were struck out because those companies were not parties to the Shareholders Agreement and, as separate juristic entities, their assets belong to them not to the 1st defendant; privity of contract prevents direct enforcement against non‑parties and trusts over registered shares are not effective against the company register under Companies Act s110(4); accordingly there were no serious issues to be tried against those defendants and the injunctions related to them were set aside, while triable issues remained as to the agreement between the plaintiff…
29 Sept 2021

MOHAMED HANAN BIN MOHAMMED ALI (NRIC NO: 870210-14-5355) [Trade under name and style BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA DAMANSARA FORESTA (Serial No: 0373) MATRIX FITNESS TECHNOLOGY (Business no: SA 0408182-T)]

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-40-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCvC-40-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate erred in striking out the claim because there are triable issues of ownership and contract, the pleading errors were curable and did not cause prejudice under Order 1A, the Hire Purchase Act did not apply to the transaction, and the matters should be determined at trial; appeal allowed and case remitted for trial with costs awarded to Appellant.
5 Mar 2021

CHUAH KUM CHAI (No.K/P: 590826-08-5737) GREAT FMCG SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 201501004197 (1129529-T)

Citation

WA-A73-27-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A73-27-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the court found the issues (whether s28A applies to employment injuries and whether the director’s representation creates an obligation circumventing s31) are not plain and obvious and require full trial; Rajendiran authority supports that such claims should not be summarily struck out.
16 Nov 2020

1. ISMAIL BIN NORDIN (No. K/P: 540617-08-5719) 2. MUSTAPHA @ MUSTAPA BIN MD NASIR (No. K/P: 500822-04-5282) 3. AHMAD SHAMSUDDIN BIN RAMLI (No. K/P: 670111-08-5151) 1. ZAILAN BIN MOHD DIAH (No. K/P: 610407-06-5091) 2. BISTAMAM BIN MOHD ZAINA

Citation

wa-22NCvC-173-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

wa-22NCvC-173-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the plaintiffs' claim as obviously unsustainable: the present action arises from identical facts already admitted and resolved by consent in prior proceedings (issue and cause of action estoppel), the plaintiffs are bound by the cooperative's internal dispute resolution and statutory protections for bona fide board actions which negate a reasonable cause of action, and the conspiracy/abuse of process claims lacked the necessary specific particulars and overt acts so were frivolous and vexatious.
12 May 2020

Stamford College Bhd Iris Corporation Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCC-221-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-221-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court rejected the Defendant's contention that the supplemental agreement was proved and held the Defendant estopped from relitigating claims under Clause 7(a) because those issues were live in the previous suit and were finally settled by the consent judgment which expressly resolved 'ALL matters' under the 4 Oct 2012 agreement; however the court held claims under Clause 7(b) (dilution of shares) were not raised in the previous suit and the alleged breach occurred after the consent judgment, thus not barred — accordingly the strike out application was partially allowed: claims relating t…
25 Mar 2020

ACMELAND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD [Company No. 863021-V] LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN JOHOR TENGGARA (KEJORA)

Citation

JA- 22NCVC-129-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA- 22NCVC-129-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application was dismissed because the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed triable issues of fact and law: Clause 4.1(d) is reasonably read as requiring submission of designs (not necessarily approval); even if approval were required the rejection did not amount to frustration because performance remained possible (plaintiff could reapply within the contractual completion timeframe); the defendant's conduct gave rise to arguable estoppel; and alleged implausibility of damages is not a ground for strike out — therefore the claim was not obviously unsustainable.
3 Jan 2020

TERESA KOK SUH SIM JAMAL BIN MD YUNOS

Citation

WA-23CY-15-04/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-15-04/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application was dismissed because it was filed after pleadings had closed and after the action had been set down for trial on multiple occasions, there was substantial and unreasonable delay without satisfactory explanation, and the pleadings disclosed a cause of action that was not plainly or obviously unsustainable such that the matter should proceed to trial.