Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplicity of proceedings

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

1. ) PHILIP PHANG KIN MING 2. ) GUNASEKAR A/L MARIAPPAN M JETS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD

Citation

B-04(A)-422-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

B-04(A)-422-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Section 69A of the Employment Act operates as a jurisdictional bar: where representations under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act have been filed and matters are pending before the Industrial Court, the Director General is precluded from inquiring into overlapping wage claims under section 69; accordingly the Labour Office lacked jurisdiction to decide the Appellants' wage claim and the High Court was correct to set aside the Labour Office decision.
20 Sept 2024

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22C-26-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-26-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned letter dated 16.8.2018, read in context and issued on the Defendant's letterhead to the Plaintiff, constituted a binding letter of undertaking (a collateral contract) by which the Defendant promised to make direct payment to the Plaintiff via the HDA; the Defendant was therefore in privity with and bound to the Plaintiff under that undertaking, and having produced no evidence or the referenced 4.6.2018 letter the court drew an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950; accordingly judgment is entered for the Plaintiff for the specified sums, interest and costs.
28 Aug 2023

1. ) Ng Kong Onn 2. ) Chew Li Ling 3. ) Yee Zie Xian 4. ) Sik Huei Shing 5. ) Ooi Cheng Hong 6. ) Ong Siah Hooi 7. ) Chee Kok Wei 8. ) Choong Yoke Wah 9. ) Kho Yong Sing 10. ) Chan Sook Kuan 11. ) Ong Teng Yew 12. ) Toh Khai Ling 13. ) Lui

Citation

BA-22NCvC-106-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-106-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Shah Alam suit was struck out because it was both premature and duplicative: the plaintiffs' claim for liquidated damages depended on the determination of a pending KL judicial review that challenged the Minister's 442-day extensions; until that decision was set aside plaintiffs had no basis to claim damages; the court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Judicature Act and O.18 r.19 to strike out rather than stay the suit, with clarificatory terms and costs to defendant.
18 Jan 2023

1. ) CHOONG HONG CHEONG 2. ) Choong Hong Cheong TAN PENNY

Citation

JA-22NCvC-70-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-70-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and statement of claim were struck out because they amounted to a duplicity of proceedings: the same issues between the same parties concerning the same matrimonial property and the validity of the Trust Deed and Power of Attorney were already before the family court in an ongoing petition, and the family court under s.76 has jurisdiction to decide those issues; accordingly the civil action was dismissed under Order 18 Rule 19(1).
10 Jan 2023

TAN SRI ROZALI BIN ISMAIL ABDUL HADI BIN HAMAD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-112-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-112-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A court-appointed Hakam, exercising functions under s48 Act 303 and Practice Direction No.1/2006, is a person acting judicially and is therefore protected by common law judicial immunity and by statutory immunity under s14(1) and s14(2) Courts of Judicature Act 1964; statements and acts coram judice are further protected by absolute privilege; the proceedings also constituted duplicity of proceedings given pending Syariah appeals; accordingly the Sessions Court’s striking out of the writs was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
24 Nov 2022

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD WONG WEI PIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-506-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-506-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counterclaim was struck out because it was the same claim already pending in the Session Court; instituting the same claim in two forums is an abuse of process under Order 18 Rule 19 and justified striking out the defendant's counterclaim while dismissing the defendant's res judicata application.
24 Nov 2022

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD WONG WEI PIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-506-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-506-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counterclaim was struck out because it duplicated a pending claim in the Sessions Court on the same facts and cause of action, which the Court held to be an abuse of the process of the Court under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.
23 Nov 2022

SEETHA A/P KUMARASAMY 1. ) AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) AKER ENGINEERING MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) AKER SOLUTIONS APAC SDN BHD 4. ) AKER SOLUTIONS ASA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-732-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-732-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim against the 4th Defendant was allowed because the Plaintiff's conspiracy claim was the sole basis to sue the 4th Defendant and that claim could not stand once the claims against the 1st and 3rd Defendants had been struck out; furthermore the Plaintiff's own pleadings established employment with the 1st Defendant so wrongful termination could not be sustained against the 4th Defendant, and filing a second suit on the same facts in another High Court constituted an abuse of process; accordingly the claim against the 4th Defendant was struck ou…
14 Nov 2022

JIWANESWARY A/P RAMAN ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD

Citation

K-04(IM)-443-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

K-04(IM)-443-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

An insurer whose statutory liability under s.96(1) RTA may be directly affected by a judgment against its insured has locus to intervene under Order 15 r.6; allowing intervention prevents duplicity and ensures disputed factual issues of tort (involvement/negligence) are determined by viva voce trial, and s.96(3) does not preclude such intervention.
21 Sept 2022

1. ) TEGUH MAJURIA SDN BHD 2. ) HAMIDON BIN ABDULLAH 3. ) AIDAN BIN HAMIDON 1. ) ATSA ARCHITECTS SDN BHD 2. ) AZIM BIN TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL AZIZ 3. ) ZULQAISAR BIN DATO' HAMIDIN

Citation

WA-23NCvC-28-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-28-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although there is substantial overlap between the Defamation Suit and the earlier-filed Civil Suit, the defendants failed to justify a stay until final disposal of the Civil Suit because the requested stay duration (approximately 15 months until trial) was excessive; the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the interlocutory stay application and observed that a transfer application to consolidate hearings would have been the appropriate remedy.