Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out under order 18 rule 19 roc 2012

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2025

P.RAVEENTHARAN A/L A.PERIASAMY TETUAN GURDIP SARJIT & CO

Citation

BA-22NCvC-78-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-78-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The orders of 7 November 2024 were inter partes because the Plaintiff had notice and opportunity to be heard but voluntarily defaulted; therefore Order 32 rule 6 ROC 2012 does not apply, no breach of natural justice occurred, the striking-out and amendment orders were lawful, and the Plaintiff's applications to set aside are dismissed.
11 Aug 2021

1. TAN KEAN HUAT 2. KONG HON KONG CHAN BAN HIN

Citation

WA-12ANCC-59-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-59-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court decision: the amended statement of claim prima facie disclosed at least one reasonable cause of action (misrepresentation and related claims) and raised serious factual issues (nexus, representations, reliance, unjust enrichment and potential lifting of the veil) that require full trial; striking out is only appropriate in plain and obvious cases and the lower court did not err in exercising its discretion to refuse summary dismissal.
22 Nov 2019

1. ) MAK YAN TAI 2. ) MAK KHUM PHO 1. ) CHIA MOY KING 2. ) PARAGON CAPACITY SDN BHD 3. ) SETIAKON ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-291-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-291-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 3rd Defendant’s strike-out application was dismissed because the Statement of Claim, read without affidavit evidence, disclosed a reasonable cause of action and raised substantial disputed questions of law and fact (including alleged illegality/forgery in transfers and effect of setting aside the JID) that required full trial and viva voce evidence; the claims were not scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of process, so summary striking out was inappropriate.
15 Nov 2018

1. TRANSNASIONAL EXPRESS SDN BHD 2. PLUSLINER SDN BHD 3. SYARIKAT KENDERAAN MELAYU KELANTAN BERHAD 4. SYARIKAT REMBAU TAMPIN SDN BHD 5. KENDERAAN LANGKASUKA SDN BHD 6. KONSORTIUM TRANSNASIONAL BERHAD 7. MHSB PROPERTIES SDN BHD TAN CHONG IND

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-92-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-92-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court striking out order because on the face of the pleadings the appellants had sufficiently pleaded coercion and unjust enrichment and had locus standi; the claims were not 'plain and obvious' to be unsustainable and therefore not suitable for summary striking out under O18 r19 ROC 2012 and must proceed to full trial.

Malaysia Case Law

P.RAVEENTHARAN A/L A.PERIASAMY TETUAN GURDIP SARJIT & CO

1. TAN KEAN HUAT 2. KONG HON KONG CHAN BAN HIN

1. ) MAK YAN TAI 2. ) MAK KHUM PHO 1. ) CHIA MOY KING 2. ) PARAGON CAPACITY SDN BHD 3. ) SETIAKON ENGINEERING SDN BHD

1. TRANSNASIONAL EXPRESS SDN BHD 2. PLUSLINER SDN BHD 3. SYARIKAT KENDERAAN MELAYU KELANTAN BERHAD 4. SYARIKAT REMBAU TAMPIN SDN BHD 5. KENDERAAN LANGKASUKA SDN BHD 6. KONSORTIUM TRANSNASIONAL BERHAD 7. MHSB PROPERTIES SDN BHD TAN CHONG IND