Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out under order 18 r.19 roc 2012

Legal area

Court

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.
31 Oct 2023

GAINHILL MARKETING SDN. BHD. PDC AUTO (KUANTAN) SDN. BHD.

Citation

CA-22NCvC-23-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-22NCvC-23-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action because the SPA of 16/4/2012 is clear and excludes reliance on representations (clause 15), the Plaintiff failed to plead essential particulars of the alleged representation, and the claim duplicates prior proceedings; accordingly the claim is obviously unsustainable and must be struck out under O.18 r.19(1)(a),(b) and (d).
3 Feb 2023

CEKAP ASIA SDN. BHD. 1. ) DATO SRI YAP SENG YEW 2. ) DATIN SRI GAN LI LI 3. ) HONG LEONG INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCC-18-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-18-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Third Defendant's strike-out application failed because the statement of claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable; material factual disputes and points of law required full trial and witness evidence; affidavits and submissions were insufficient to dispose of the claim summarily under Order 18 r.19, therefore the application to strike out was dismissed and the action allowed to proceed to trial with costs to the Third Defendant.
16 Feb 2022

SARASWATHIDEVI A/P SAMINATHAN (KP:670725-08-5842) Sebagai Wakil Diri bagi Pesaka RAMAIAH A/L PATCHIAMUTHU, Simati (KP: 641003-02-5861) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD(No. Syarikat:6463-H)

Citation

PA-11ANCC-7-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11ANCC-7-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
6 Jan 2021

PEMILIK-PEMILIK DAN/ATAU PENCARTER-PENCARTER DEMIS TONGKANG ATAU VESEL "WANTAS 17" PEMILIK-PEMILIK KAPAL ATAU VESEL "MY FERRY 2"

Citation

W-02(IM)(ADM)-2158-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(ADM)-2158-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal and struck out the Respondent's claim because the Appellant's vessel was a dumb barge without self-propulsion and at the material time was under the control and management of a third-party tug which was the actual tortfeasor; the Respondent had sued the wrong tug owner so the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was obviously unsustainable, justifying summary dismissal under Order 18 r.19 ROC 2012.
29 Apr 2020

SYARIKAT LOGISTIK PETIKEMAS SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCVC-201-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-201-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim failed to plead with precision any special relationship or facts establishing a duty of care necessary for negligent misrepresentation, the alleged representation was an expression of intention not an actionable misrepresentation, and the pleading of legal consequences without material facts disclosed no reasonable cause of action; therefore the claim was properly struck out under Order 18 r.19.
9 Jan 2020

KONSORTIUM LORD-SABERKAT SDN BHD PETRON MALAYSIA REFINING & MARKETING BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-850-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-850-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the present suit seeks to relitigate the same contract and facts that formed the foundation of the earlier suit, the claims could and should have been raised earlier, and therefore are barred by res judicata/estoppel and constitute an abuse of the court's process; striking out under Order 18 r.19 was proper as the claim was plainly unsustainable.
24 Jul 2019

1. ABDUL MALIK BIN SAID OMAR (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the late: (a) Norhuda Bt S Said (b) Katijah Bt S Abd (c) Maimunah Bt S Abd (d) Nor Bt S Said (e) Sefiah Bt S Said (f) S Ab Wahid Abd (g) Ab Salam B S Omar 2. FATHIYAH

Citation

S-02(IM)(NCVC)-1747-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

S-02(IM)(NCVC)-1747-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the 1st and 3rd appellants' claims were time-barred because knowledge of the alleged fraud was established by the police report of 1 August 2012, but the High Court erred in striking out the 2nd appellant's claim without determining when she became aware of the fraud; therefore the appeal is dismissed as to the 1st and 3rd appellants and allowed as to the 2nd appellant, with the High Court's order striking out the 2nd appellant set aside and the 2nd appellant's claim to proceed to trial to determine accrual and other triable issues.