Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

Mazian binti Md Sa'at Anuar bin Mat Jan

Citation

JB-22NCvC-42-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-42-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application was allowed because the Plaintiff failed to plead particulars of alleged fraud/misrepresentation/undue influence, the allegations were contradicted by contemporaneous documentary evidence and the Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrating knowledge and consent, and because an inordinate unexplained delay of about 12 years caused serious evidential prejudice making the claim plainly unsustainable under Order 18 r 19.
11 Mar 2026

1. ) V CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) DATO' HOO VOON HIM 1. ) IMPIANA SDN BHD 2. ) DATO' SERI ISMAIL @ FAROUK BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-22NCC-689-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-689-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Suit 689 was struck out because it sought to nullify the same SSA that a competent court (YA Justice Leong in Suit 354) had ordered to be specifically performed, and independently because the claim was frivolous and vexatious, barred by the extended res judicata principle (claims could and should have been advanced as a counterclaim in Suit 354), and constituted an abuse of process given the plaintiffs' tactical litigation conduct; those four independent grounds justified striking out and awarding indemnity costs.
3 Mar 2026

Brumasi Holdings Sdn Bhd (dalam likuidasi) 1. ) Bumaci Holdings Sdn Bhd 2. ) Soo Yuh Mian 3. ) Kang Hock Hin 4. ) Poon Kheng Chan 5. ) Kang Rong Ye 6. ) Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Johor

Citation

JA-22NCvC-123-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-123-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the strike-out application: the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against Defendant 1 because Plaintiff did not plead knowledge, fraud or participation by Defendant 1 and did not challenge the sworn affidavit confirming receipt of RM500,000; the claim was found frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process given the 15-year delay, absence of fresh material facts and collateral attack on earlier liquidation transactions; consequently the writ and statement of claim as against Defendant 1 were struck out and costs awarded to Defendant 1.
27 Feb 2026

Subashini a/p Thiyagarajan Tadika Alam Inovatif

Citation

BA-16-57-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-57-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that section 77 Employment Act 1955 prescribes that appeals shall follow the procedure of a civil appeal from a Sessions Court and therefore the proper procedure is under Order 55 ROC; O.92 r.4 ROC is a residuary power that cannot be used to displace an existing statutory procedure; the Respondent's reliance on O.92 r.4 to strike out the Appellant's appeal was inappropriate and Enclosure 12 was defective and dismissed.
25 Feb 2026

1. ) SELANGOR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION SDN. BHD. 2. ) GREAT VIEW ALUMINIUM SDN. BHD. 3. ) ACE BUILDING MATERIALS SDN. BHD. 4. ) WORLDWIDE ALUMINIUM BUILDER SDN. BHD. 5. ) CTSM GEOTECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. 6. ) SEN LENG TRADING 7. ) BESTECH BUILDER

Citation

WA-22NCC-428-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-428-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the Statement of Claim pleads arguable causes of action in fraud and related wrongdoing; references to s.503 liquidation materials do not render the pleading obviously unsustainable or an abuse of process and issues of admissibility, weight and derivativeness are fact- and evidence-sensitive matters for trial, not grounds for summary termination.
23 Feb 2026

KCSB KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor 2. ) JOHOR CORPORATION

Citation

JA-21NCvC-21-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-21-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and statement of claim dated 13.12.2024 constitute an abuse of process by substantial duplication of issues already the subject of active proceedings (SP 1017 and JR 41); therefore the action is struck out under Order 18 r 19(1)(d) KKM 2012 to prevent multiplicity, conflicting decisions and misuse of court process. The court did not decide the substantive merits of the underlying claims.
13 Feb 2026

ESYS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NURUL SHAZILA BTE MUHAMAD

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the affidavits and contemporaneous documents the plaintiff proved the debt: invoices, a valid CPC, WhatsApp requests for price reduction and two part payments; the defendant's denials were bare, contradicted by contemporaneous evidence and failed to disclose a bona fide triable defence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for RM89,780.89 with interest and costs, and the defendant's counterclaim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as vexatious/abusive of process.
13 Feb 2026

1. ) MARCUS MAR HUNG THAN 2. ) MAR'S PARAGON RESOURCES SDN BHD DING MEE HUONG berniaga sebagai pemilik tunggal yang dikenali sebagai Element Studio (No Pendaftaran Perniagaan (201303311143) (002283763-K))

Citation

WA-22NCvC-703-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-703-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amended statement of claim was struck out because, even viewed at its highest, it contained only conclusory allegations and failed to plead essential material facts (specific contractual terms, scope of legal obligations, proximity/duty in tort, particulars of fraud and causal link from statutory breach to civil liability), rendering the claim obviously unsustainable under Order 18 Rule 19.
12 Feb 2026

1. ) Adzni bin Ahmad Fekry 2. ) Ahmad Zainurrashid bin Bunyamin 3. ) Amirliza Bin Busu 4. ) Azuwan bin Dol 5. ) BS Law And Sons Sdn Bhd 6. ) BS Law Realty Sdn Bhd 7. ) Chan Poh Guan 8. ) Chang Wee Chin 9. ) Wang Li Li 10. ) Dato' Law Ban Se

Citation

MA-21NCvC-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

MA-21NCvC-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 4th Defendant was struck out because the pleadings were vague, unparticularised and abusive, seeking to convert a contractual dispute with the developer into an action against a local authority; the appropriate remedy for alleged failure to perform statutory duties is judicial review/mandamus and not the present form of action, therefore the claims were scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process and disclosed no sustainable cause of action under Order 18 r19(1)(b) and (d).
9 Feb 2026

BRUNSFIELD METROPOLITAN SDN BHD 1. ) SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD 2. ) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-389-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-389-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The without prejudice communications are protected by privilege and inadmissible because the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold for the unambiguous impropriety exception; the alleged impropriety was not clear on the face of the communications and depended on subsequent conduct and hindsight, and unmarked messages forming part of the series are equally privileged.