11 Dec 2023
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant, not being a party to the prior litigation, lacked locus standi; the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of court process; therefore the Session Court decision was affirmed and costs awarded.
8 Feb 2023
The application to strike out succeeds because the statement of claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action: key allegations either allege illegal agreements (unenforceable under s.24 Contract Act 1950), lack necessary particulars for fraud, misrepresentation and defamation, rely on selective WhatsApp extracts rather than full communications, and claim unspecified general damages contrary to Order 18 r12(1A); accordingly the claim is bound to fail and dismissal without full trial is appropriate.
30 May 2022
The counterclaim was struck out because the defendants failed to obtain PTG approval within the contractual time (a fundamental condition precedent/time‑essence term), there was no contractual basis to claim RM5,950,000 and the counterclaim was plainly and obviously unsustainable under Order 18 r 19.
16 Feb 2022
The High Court held the Sessions Court correctly struck out the Appellant’s defence under O.18 r.19 because the defence consisted of bare denials and unsubstantiated assertions that did not disclose any reasonable or bona fide triable issue; O.15 r.6A treated the action as properly against the deceased's estate and the strike‑out was therefore warranted.
29 Jul 2021
The application to strike out was dismissed because the Statement of Claim and accompanying facts disclose multiple disputed issues of fact (existence and scope of contract, nature of appointment, work performed) that require a full trial; the potential non‑registration of the Plaintiff as architects does not on its own render the claim unsustainable.