Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim joinder

Legal area

Court

2 May 2024

PJ MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ASIANLAND REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) OYO ROOMS HOSPITALITY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-267-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-267-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 13.12.2019 Agreement imposed tenant‑like payment obligations on Asianland and the 18.10.2019 Guarantee by OYO MY was a valid, enforceable instrument binding OYO MY (apparent authority and consideration established); no genuine triable issues existed so summary judgment for PJ Midtown was appropriate. Asianland’s counterclaim was procedurally defective for failing to include PJ Midtown as required by Order 15 Rule 3(1) ROC and, in any event, the counterclaim falls within disputes stayed for arbitration; attempted amendment could not cure the fundamental sequential joinder requirement and w…
20 Nov 2023

1. ) PERIASAMY A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) PERSATUAN BOLA SEPAK DAERAH TEMERLOH 1. ) AGENSI K.B EDIBLE OIL SDN BHD 2. ) Pengarah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 3. ) TREKTIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (telah dibubarkan, perkara dalam tindak

Citation

CB-21NCvC-1-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-21NCvC-1-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove fraud on the balance of probabilities; at time of transfer to Agensi K.B. Edible Oil there was no subsisting caveat or recorded encumbrance and Defendant Second acted in accordance with statutory requirements; Defendants lacked knowledge of Plaintiff's auction purchase; Third Party's counterclaims against other parties are not appropriately joined to or determinative in this action and thus are not decided on their merits here. Therefore both the Plaintiff's claim and the Third Party's counterclaim are dismissed with costs.
3 Dec 2019

PROJALMA SDN BHD FRUHPC CONCEPT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-107-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-107-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was no binding arbitration agreement for the five contested Singapore projects because the work orders and appended standard terms containing arbitration clauses were not signed by FRUHPC; therefore s10 Arbitration Act 2005 did not require a stay. The counterclaim disclosed triable issues and the joinder of individuals was permitted under Order 15 r.3, so the counterclaim could not be struck out summarily under Order 18 r.19 and should be tried together; accordingly the lower court's dismissal of the applicant's applications was correct and is affirmed with costs RM5,000.00.

Malaysia Case Law

PJ MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ASIANLAND REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) OYO ROOMS HOSPITALITY SDN BHD

1. ) PERIASAMY A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) PERSATUAN BOLA SEPAK DAERAH TEMERLOH 1. ) AGENSI K.B EDIBLE OIL SDN BHD 2. ) Pengarah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 3. ) TREKTIMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (telah dibubarkan, perkara dalam tindak

PROJALMA SDN BHD FRUHPC CONCEPT SDN BHD