Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out under order 18 rule 19

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2025

1. ) ARIEF AFFENDI BIN AB WAHAB 2. ) ASMAA' BINTI ABDULLAH 3. ) FARIS SYAHMI BIN MOHD FAUZI 4. ) NOOR EDURA BINTI MAT ZIN 5. ) NUR AZYAN ATHIRAH BTE ABDUL WAHID @ MAHFOZ 6. ) MOHD RASYID BIN MOHSIN 7. ) SUFIAN LIM XI ZHAO BIN AZLIM 8. ) ZUN

Citation

WA-22NCC-800-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-800-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claims against the 3rd and 8th Defendants were struck out because the Statement of Claim was prolix and failed to plead individualised acts, representations and requisite particulars of fraud and knowledge against those defendants; therefore the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the case was plainly and obviously unsustainable under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.
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 Counterclaim was struck out as against the named Counterclaim Defendants because the Misappropriation Claim was conceded as legally defective for want of locus standi (proper plaintiff rule and reflective loss) and the Beneficial Ownership Claim was plainly unsustainable on admitted facts and law (resulting trust in favour of Dawama, absence of contemporaneous evidence, contradiction by registered shareholders, fatal non‑joinder of Dawama, and abuse of process), thereby meeting the threshold for strike out under Order 18 Rule 19.
19 May 2024

1. ) YAP SENG MAW 2. ) YAP ST MUAN 3. ) YAP ST KEAT 4. ) YAP ZI HENG 5. ) CHOW MING MING 6. ) LEE LIN WEI 7. ) ONG BOEY ENG 8. ) TAN ZHI KAI 9. ) LEE NYOK PENG 1. ) LIM TIAN HUAT (sebagai Penerima dan Pengurus Eco Homes Builders Sdn Bhd) 2.

Citation

JA-22NCC-57-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-57-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the subject properties were charged under a registered debenture and legal charges which expressly prohibited dealing without the bank's prior written consent, SPAs executed without that consent did not confer enforceable rights against the bank or its receivers; therefore claims against the chargee and receivers were plainly unsustainable and properly struck out, rendering the interim injunction academic.
1 Mar 2024

DIGORA SDN. BHD. FGV FERTILISER SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12ANCC-69-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-69-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 15.4.2022 letter was an arrangement between Assess Products and FGV Fertiliser to which Digora was not a party; privity of contract prevents Digora from enforcing that letter against FGV Fertiliser, thus there is no reasonable cause of action; the subsequent payment instructions from Assess Products lawfully superseded the earlier arrangement as between the contracting parties; fraud was not properly pleaded in the statement of claim and lacked particulars; silence to a demand letter does not amount to admission—therefore the claim against FGV Fertiliser was plainly and obviously unsustai…
8 Nov 2022

BARISAN PERDANA SDN BHD 1. ) THE PATALING RUBBER ESTATES LIMITED 2. ) SIME DARBY PLANTATION (PENINSULAR) SDN BHD (Dahulu dikenali sebagai GOLDEN HOPE PLANTATIONS (PENINSULAR) SDN BHD) 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) KOPERASI SE

Citation

WA-21NCvC-50-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-50-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out as a plain and obvious abuse of process barred by res judicata; the plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing jurisdictional nullity or fraud/connivance sufficient to justify a collateral attack on the OS 100 orders; procedural defects did not create a valid cause of action and the plaintiff should have appealed or applied to set aside in the original proceedings; costs awarded.
20 Oct 2022

1. ) BERJAYA ENVIROPARKS SDN BHD 2. ) BERJAYA ENERGIES SDN BHD 1. ) MOHD NOR RIZAL BIN NAPIAH 2. ) ADVANCECON MACHINERY SDN BHD

Citation

BL-12A-12-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12A-12-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in striking out the writ because it was not a plain and obvious case; factual and legal issues whether the discharge/subrogation documents and insurer payments extinguished the appellants' right to claim consequential loss required trial. Payment by insurer for covered property damage did not automatically bar a separate claim for consequential loss not covered by the policy. Appeal allowed and matter remitted for trial.
11 Aug 2022

Geo Hill Construction Sdn Bhd JAYANDREN A/L SUBRAMANIAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-152-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-152-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable cause of action: there is no documentary proof of appointment or privity, material inconsistencies in lot numbers and project location, Defendant's evidence (including affidavits and documents from Pesat Bumi and the site information board) rebut Plaintiff's narrative, and the claim is therefore obviously unsustainable; accordingly the Court allowed the Defendant's striking out application and dismissed the action with costs.
20 Jul 2022

LFL SDN BHD Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

W-01(IM)-393-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)-393-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred in striking out the originating summonses because the issues (extra‑territorial effect of Singapore law and interaction with sovereign immunity and constitutional rights) raise serious questions requiring full and mature consideration and are not plainly or obviously unsustainable; thus the striking out under O.18 r.19 was inappropriate and the matters must be remitted to the High Court for full hearing.
18 May 2022

PEMPETISYEN M Rubini and Kumara Guru Naikar for the Petitioner [Messrs Christopher Lee & Ong] S Murali for the Respondent [Messrs Murali Sangaran]

Citation

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the documents that the petitioner is successor in title to GreenLine and an unpaid creditor; the statutory demand was properly served and the respondent failed to discharge the onus of showing ability to pay; a winding up petition is not an execution requiring REJA registration and the REJA did not bar the petition; accordingly the strike out application failed and the winding up petition was allowed with costs.
20 Apr 2022

PEMPETISYEN Nad Segaram and Ow Jeong Jun for the Petitioner [Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co.] ustin Voon and Lim Shu Ting for the Respondent [Messrs Justin Voon Chooi & Wing (Kuala Lumpur]

Citation

WA-28NCC-585-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-585-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held there was no bona fide substantial dispute: the company's conduct and part payments amounted to acceptance/admission of the Settlement Agreement; the affidavit defect was cured by Rule 197; non-stamping did not go to the document's validity; the statutory demand remained unsatisfied within 21 days; consequently the company was unable to pay its debts and the winding up petition succeeded while the strike-out application failed.