Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of pleading

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2025

1. ) THE ONE MINERALS MINING SDN. BHD. 2. ) YAW CHOON KIT 1. ) LOOI KAM YONG 2. ) CHIN MEI CHING

Citation

WA-22NCvC-321-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-321-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim failed to plead material facts or necessary particulars to support the allegations of fraud/misappropriation, improperly joined unrelated causes and parties and therefore would prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial; accordingly the claim was struck out under Order 18 Rule 19(c).
31 May 2023

1. ) SATHISH KUMAR AYYASWAMY 2. ) NARESH NAIR A/L SURASAN PEERAN SYED MOHAMED SYED MAHABOOB

Citation

JA-23NCvC-3-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-23NCvC-3-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned words, although abusive, are not defamatory in their ordinary and natural meaning and do not impute dishonourable or discreditable conduct; the plaintiffs also failed to plead publication to identified third parties with sufficient particulars; accordingly the Statement of Claim is plainly and obviously unsustainable under O.18 r.19 and is to be struck out.
23 May 2023

1. ) YEE PAK NGEE 2. ) YEE CHIA CHEK YEE KIM LIAN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-97-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-97-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found credible consistent oral evidence and conduct demonstrating the three certainties of an express trust; Defendant obtained legal title but held it as trustee for 2nd Plaintiff, breached the oral agreement by acting to assert ownership and paying premium without informing Plaintiffs, and therefore must transfer the land to 2nd Plaintiff; no damages awarded because Plaintiffs failed to prove future loss.
19 Jan 2022

BAN BEE HUAT ENTERPRISE (1) SYARIKAT ALADDIN SPICE SDN BHD (2) LIM KOK HENG

Citation

BK-A52-6-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-A52-6-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the Statement of Claim lacked certain particulars of fraud/misrepresentation, the substance of the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and the defects were curable by amendment (the plaintiff exhibited a proposed amended pleading); therefore the claim was not 'obviously unsustainable' and the strike-out application under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012 was dismissed.
9 Aug 2021

Ace Capital Growth Sdn Bhd Kua Kee Hoon & Ors

Citation

WA-22NCC-565-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-565-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conspiracy cause of action against Defendants 3–6 was struck out because the Statement of Claim failed to plead the essential constituent ingredients of conspiracy with required particularity (no pleaded agreement, meeting of minds, dates, roles or overt acts by each alleged conspirator), rendering the claim obviously unsustainable, frivolous and vexatious; the claim against Defendants 1 and 2 remains live and will proceed to trial.
21 Oct 2020

WEE SU BEE 1. GOH LAI CHUN 2. PUI CHENG CHIN

Citation

DA-22NCVC-4-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-4-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to plead and prove, with the required particulars and beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of a trust or the terms of any enforceable agreement to transfer the property; contemporaneous documents and conduct did not support the claim, therefore the registered title remains indefeasible under s 340 NLC and the claim for declaration fails, but equitable repayment for proven payments was ordered.
28 Aug 2020

WANG ZHI YU & ORS TEO SUNG NGIAP & 6 ORS

Citation

WA-22NCC-443-08/2019 heard together with WA-22NCC-560-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-443-08/2019 heard together with WA-22NCC-560-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed all discovery and further and better particulars applications because the applicants failed to meet the necessity threshold under the Rules of Court: they did not show the documents were necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or saving costs, nor that the documents were in the possession, custody or power of the opposing party; the requests amounted to fishing for evidence and were oppressive given their timing shortly before trial; particulars sought were evidentiary not material facts; consequently the applications were refused and the matters were ordered to…
1 Jan 1900

HARYANY BINTI MOHAMAD 1. ) 1.RADZIAH BINTI OTHUMAN SAHIB (NO. K/P: 930203-07-5362) 2. ) 2.MUHAMAD HAFIZ BIN ZAINULA (NO. K/P: 900916-07-5779) 3. ) 3.AMBIGA DEVY CHIN 4. ) 4.MKINI DOTCOM SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 489718-U) 5. ) 5.TERESA SUSAN

Citation

PA-23NCvC-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-23NCvC-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the statement of claim against the applicant defendants because the plaintiff failed to particularise the alleged defamatory words and the Letter and Comments did not, in their ordinary meaning, convey the pleaded defamatory meanings; innuendo was not pleaded as required; consequently no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.