Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out application

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2025

PEMPETISYEN AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD WS RENT-A-CAR SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28NCC-249-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-249-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Failure by the Respondent to pay the judgment debt within 21 days of a valid statutory demand gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of insolvency which the Respondent failed to discharge on the evidence; the petition was not an abuse of process and the Court will wind up the company and appoint the Official Receiver as liquidator.
10 Mar 2025

1. ) PENG WEI 2. ) WANG YAZHOU 1. ) AMBANG INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 2. ) MOH HIONG HUA 3. ) ZHANG GENLIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-631-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-631-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that the defendants' pleadings and affidavit contained clear admissions that monies were received and that full payment had not been made; under Order 27 Rule 3 these admissions entitled the plaintiffs to judgment on the admitted sums, and Enclosure 46 was therefore allowed with costs. The recusal application failed because there was no real danger of bias and no pecuniary or proprietary interest by the judge; however the court allowed prayer (a) of Enclosure 43 to set aside the earlier order dismissing the strike out application and fixed Enclosure 21 for re-hearing to ensure…
3 Feb 2025

PERSPEKTIF MASA SDN BHD SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-490-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-490-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff’s claim was plainly unsustainable because the written bank guarantee and facility agreements unequivocally permitted payment on demand without the bank investigating disputes between beneficiary and principal; the plaintiff accepted and benefited from the facilities and later converted the paid guarantee into a term loan, there was no adequate evidence of unconscionable conduct or of any duty on the bank to investigate, therefore the strike‑out application succeeds.
17 Jan 2025

SKYTECH SYNERGY SDN BHD LOW HUI PING

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-15-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-15-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found, on the evidence of the quotation, invoices and payment records, that the 1st Defendant signed in her capacity as chairman of the registered society and not in her personal capacity; accordingly privity of contract and s9(c) of the Societies Act mean there is no cause of action against her personally and the claim against her must be struck out.
29 Nov 2024

1. ) Shahrizat, Rashid & Lee 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Kartina Binti Arshad 4. ) Elizabeth Shanti A/P Frank Louis XXXX

Citation

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2255-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-2255-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellants failed to show the Plaintiffs' claim was obviously unsustainable; there are disputed material facts (including admissions in a statutory declaration, cheque signatures and competing accounts) that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence and therefore Suit 199 must proceed to trial; consequently the strike out appeals lacked merit and are dismissed.
21 Oct 2024

Vijayaletchumy A/p Samykannu M. NAGARAJAN A/L MUNISAMY

Citation

BL-12BNCvC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12BNCvC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the respondent was the registered proprietor on the title documents and no fraud or misrepresentation was pleaded or proved, the registered title is indefeasible under the National Land Code (ss.89 and 340); the appellant's allegations of a bare trust and reliance on payment of rates/utilities do not rebut the conclusive effect of registration and the Sessions Court correctly struck out the defence/counterclaim and ordered vacant possession and associated remedies, which the High Court affirmed.
20 Sept 2024

POHLEH AUTO WORKSHOP SDN BHD BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-22NCC-431-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-431-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff's complaints did not amount to 'improper conduct' under the WPA 2010 (breaches of the Guideline are regulatory, not 'disciplinary offences'), the plaintiff was not a whistleblower under the Act, statutory immunity protected the defendant for acts done in good faith and no bad faith was pleaded, the plaintiff lacked locus standi and could not show the defendant caused the alleged detrimental action; accordingly the writ and statement of claim were struck out.
3 Jul 2024

1. ) DATUK PARMJIT SINGH A/L MEVA SINGH 2. ) GURPARDEEP SINGH A/L C. JAGIR SINGH 3. ) MOHD HELMY BIN NORMAN 4. ) MUHAMMAD ANIS UR REHMAN 5. ) VINESH A/L THIRUCHELVAM 6. ) ANTHONYSAMY E. A/L SANTHANASAMY 7. ) ZULIANA TONG BINTI ABDULLAH 8. )

Citation

WA-22NCC-936-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-936-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Strike out is warranted because the pleaded case fails as a matter of law: the Defendant was not a party to the MIP Agreement and there is no privity of contract; the Plaintiffs' claims were discharged by the MIP Agreement between ILMU and the Plaintiffs (accord and satisfaction); the Plaintiffs did not plead facts to justify piercing the corporate veil and mere assertions of significant control or a single economic unit are insufficient to impose liability on the Defendant.
21 Mar 2024

FIXUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) K&E DESIGN IDEAS SDN. BHD. 2. ) KAW MAN KONG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-559-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-559-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the Plaintiff's claim against the 2nd Defendant because the pleadings and evidence did not establish actual fraud, fraud in equity, a sham/facade or that the evasion principle applied; mere directorship, lobbying for contract award, friendship or alleged assurances without a signed personal guarantee are insufficient to lift or pierce the corporate veil; therefore the claim against the 2nd Defendant was obviously unsustainable.
4 Mar 2024

HARJIT SINGH A/L UJAGAR SINGH 1. ) JAGDEV SINGH A/L UJAGAR SINGH 2. ) AMARJIT SINGH A/L UJAGAR SINGH 3. ) RASHPAL SINGH A/L UJAGAR SINGH 4. ) MANJIT KAUR A/P UJAGAR SINGH 5. ) HARREMENDAR KAUR A/P UJAGAR SINGH 6. ) SARJIT KAUR A/P HARNAM SI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-508-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-508-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action: the Bangsar property had already been transferred to the plaintiff pre‑death and the business proceeds were not shown to form part of the estate; allegations of forgery and lack of testamentary capacity were bare, unsupported and raised decades late, amounting to an abuse of process and susceptible to laches/res judicata; accordingly the defendants' strike out application succeeded and the suit was struck out with costs.