Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Multiplicity of actions

Legal area

Court

13 May 2025

WWF CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN. BHD. KIM MARCELLUS A/L K.M. MATTHEWS

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-183-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-183-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeals are dismissed because the plaintiff failed to comply with the Sessions Court's direction to file an affidavit in reply and did not apply for an extension of time; that failure deprived the court of the ability to weigh both parties' positions, making the striking out proper and rendering the default judgment application academic; additionally, the claims amounted to a multiplicity of actions potentially overlapping with Industrial Court proceedings, supporting strike out.
29 Nov 2024

XXXX XXXX

Citation

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2334-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2334-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Defendants failed to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs' claim in Suit 199 was plainly unsustainable or conclusively barred by multiplicity of actions, res judicata or estoppel; material disputed facts (including statutory declaration implicating partners, issuance of cheques, alleged negligence and potential vicarious liability) required resolution at a full trial, therefore the High Court's dismissal of the strike-out applications and consequent refusal to strike out were correct and the appeals were dismissed.
29 Sept 2021

1. NICSMANN MACAN SDN BHD [CO. NO.: 201001043494 (927422-H)] 2. REDFIELD DELUXE (M) SDN BHD [CO. NO.: 201001008903 (893531-M)] 3. JUBLI SIMFONI SDN BHD (CO. NO.: 1330454-A) 4. ONG CHOW CHASE (NRIC NO.: 820319-01-5049) 1. KER PAYD HOCK (NRIC

Citation

WA-22NCC-143-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-143-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application failed because the plaintiffs' claim was not plainly or obviously unsustainable: they alleged grounds (fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, failure of consideration) that if proven could justify setting aside the consent judgments, the present claim includes facts arising after the consent judgments and therefore is not the same cause of action, multiplicity and prolixity complaints were unfounded, and forum challenges are distinct and not a basis for strike out at this stage.
7 Jul 2021

1. ) 5 STAR ROOM HOTEL SDN. BHD. 2. ) TANG WOOI CHON 3. ) CHUNSI KUDKUMKONG 4. ) TANG WOAN ROU 5. ) TANG WOANREN BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

W-02(IM)(MUA)-788-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(MUA)-788-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the interlocutory orders were correct: the transcript was inadmissible and could not support an estoppel; there was no pleaded manifest error to displace the conclusive effect of the Certificates of Indebtedness; the counterclaim duplicated an earlier action and was an abuse of process; the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting summary judgment and striking out the counterclaim; appeal dismissed with costs.
23 Dec 2020

ANNAMARY A/P BALASAMY (K/P NO. 650517-01-5985) sebagai ibu yang sah kepada MARGREAD A/P JAIJIN, simati dan membawa tindakan ini untuk dirinya dan juga pihak estate simati dibawah Seksyen 7 & 8 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956, dan juga bagi ga

Citation

JA-12A-4-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-4-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956 plainly prohibits more than one action in respect of the same subject matter; because the husband had earlier filed a dependency claim resulting in consent judgment, the plaintiff's subsequent dependency claim was barred and properly struck out; section 7(8) does not permit multiple actions by beneficiaries in a way that undermines s7(5); multiplicity of proceedings can be addressed by strike out and need not be specially pleaded.
3 Sept 2020

MUNDIANDY A/L MUNISAMY & ANOR SHING TAT HARDWARE & TRADING

Citation

JA-12A-23-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-23-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956, by its plain wording and supported by authority, permits only one action in respect of the same subject matter; that bar applies to individual beneficiaries including parents and therefore the appellants' claim was barred and the appeal dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

WWF CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN. BHD. KIM MARCELLUS A/L K.M. MATTHEWS

XXXX XXXX

1. NICSMANN MACAN SDN BHD [CO. NO.: 201001043494 (927422-H)] 2. REDFIELD DELUXE (M) SDN BHD [CO. NO.: 201001008903 (893531-M)] 3. JUBLI SIMFONI SDN BHD (CO. NO.: 1330454-A) 4. ONG CHOW CHASE (NRIC NO.: 820319-01-5049) 1. KER PAYD HOCK (NRIC

1. ) 5 STAR ROOM HOTEL SDN. BHD. 2. ) TANG WOOI CHON 3. ) CHUNSI KUDKUMKONG 4. ) TANG WOAN ROU 5. ) TANG WOANREN BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD

ANNAMARY A/P BALASAMY (K/P NO. 650517-01-5985) sebagai ibu yang sah kepada MARGREAD A/P JAIJIN, simati dan membawa tindakan ini untuk dirinya dan juga pihak estate simati dibawah Seksyen 7 & 8 Akta Undang-Undang Sibil 1956, dan juga bagi ga

MUNDIANDY A/L MUNISAMY & ANOR SHING TAT HARDWARE & TRADING