Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out (order 18 r.19)

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2025

SAVILLS (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) Dato Jeyaraj A/l V. Ratnaswamy 2. ) DISTRICT GRAND LODGE OF THE EASTERN ARCHIPELAGO 3. ) CHRIS TEH TEONG KHUAN 4. ) EXSIM DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 5. ) CHRISTOPHER MARTIN BOYD

Citation

WA-22NCC-350-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-350-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application was dismissed because the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses reasonable causes of action and there are genuine conflicts of material fact (concerning introduction, conduct, intent and use of groundwork) and questions of intent and unjust enrichment that are not amenable to summary determination; therefore the matter must proceed to trial.
28 Apr 2025

ZAKIAH BINTI MOHAMAD 1. ) KETUA POLIS DAERAH KOTA BAHRU, KELANTAN 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) Pengarah Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II 4. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

DA-21NCvC-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the defendants' strike‑out application because the statement of claim on its face failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action: the plaintiff did not properly plead causes actionable against identified public officers as required by ss.5–6 Government Proceedings Act 1956 for vicarious liability of the Government, misapplied Order 15 r.6A when no estate claim/probate/administration was established, and therefore the claim was frivolous/abuse of process and suitable for summary dismissal under Order 18 r.19.
7 Nov 2024

1. ) TAN KOK HEONG 2. ) TAN KOK CHENG 3. ) TAN KOK GEA 1. ) MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 3. ) KUMPULAN PERANGSANG SELANGOR BERHAD 4. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Langat

Citation

BA-21NCvC-49-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-49-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The April 19, 1982 letter was signed by the First Defendant in his capacity as chairman of the Third Defendant and did not constitute a binding promise by the State Authority; the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be used to override statutory powers over land alienation; therefore the Plaintiffs have no reasonable cause of action against the First, Second and Fourth Defendants and the strike‑out application under Order 18 r.19(1)(a) succeeds as to those defendants, while limitation issues require full trial if appellate review overturns this finding.
2 Aug 2024

1. ) FRANCO CHAN YOONG JURCH 2. ) WONG WAI YIN 3. ) SIN LEE PIN 4. ) LAU POH CHEOK YU KUAN CHON

Citation

WA-22NCvC-64-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-64-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Both interlocutory applications were dismissed because the matters raised involved contested factual and legal issues (expiry of option, effect of assignments, identity/nominee status of companies, validity for want of consideration) that could not be resolved summarily; a full trial was necessary to evaluate evidence and determine rights.
7 Sept 2023

1. ) Loo Ser Chong 2. ) Loo Ser Phen 1. ) Heng Boon Chin 2. ) Heng Bung Teik 3. ) HENG SAI CHUAN

Citation

BB-A52NCvC-55-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-A52NCvC-55-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the SPA was valid and binding; the plaintiffs failed to plead the particulars of any misrepresentation with sufficient specificity; plaintiffs had opportunity to inspect the land and their allegation of misrepresentation was an afterthought; on the face of the pleadings the claim was plainly unsustainable and constituted an abuse of process, therefore the defendant's application to strike out the writ and statement of claim under Order 18 r.19(1) was allowed and costs were awarded to the defendants.
10 Jun 2022

PEMPETISYEN Robert Wong Kai Kong 1. ) Wong Tze Yah 2. ) Lim Cheun Seng

Citation

WA-33-27-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-27-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Consent Order was only between the Petitioner and the First Respondent and did not extinguish the Petitioner's statutory right to claim damages against the Second Respondent under sections 58 and 59 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976; the claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable and the Second Respondent had admissions supporting the relationship, therefore the strike-out application failed and was dismissed.
9 Mar 2022

LAU KOK LOON @ LAU SAY SIOK 1. ) LOW YEE MING 2. ) AHMAD GULAM BIN AB GHAFAR 3. ) EIZWA BINTI SALLEH 4. ) HANIF BIN HASHIM 5. ) KENNETH GODFREY GOMES 6. ) TETUAN SABARUDIN OTHMAN & HO 7. ) ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI 8. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAER

Citation

WA-22NCvC-80-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-80-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The striking out application was dismissed because the statement of claim, read as a whole, discloses triable issues of conspiracy, fraud and malicious falsehood that are not plain and obviously unsustainable; the pleadings raise sufficient particulars and circumstantial links to require viva voce evidence and a full trial to resolve conflicts of fact and issues of credibility, and any deficiencies can be remedied by amendment rather than summary dismissal.
14 Feb 2022

ARI UTARA SDN BHD 1. ) CF JAYA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) CHING FOO 3. ) LEE HOI LEN

Citation

PA-22NCvC-65-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-65-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The deed of assignment operated only to assign interim payments from the main contractor as a mode of repayment; it did not contain any provision releasing the 1st defendant from personal liability nor transferring that liability to Proaktif, therefore the admitted debt remained payable by the 1st defendant and no triable issue was raised — summary judgment was appropriate and the strike out application failed.
5 Aug 2021

SOO CHEONG PUI 1. WONG SWEE KWOANG 2. LAI FOOK PING 3. WONG SEE MUN

Citation

B52-22-03-2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

B52-22-03-2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to strike out was dismissed because (a) res judicata does not apply to suits impeaching judgments allegedly obtained by fraud and such matters require full trial evidence, and (b) the plaintiff as sole proprietor has locus standi to sue and had indicated the business in the sanction process; therefore summary disposal by strike out was inappropriate.
26 Apr 2021

1. ) ABRAHAM MOSES 2. ) SOH BOCK CHOOI COSMOPLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD

Citation

A52NCVC-552-10-2020 (Encl 9) (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Encl 9
Case number

A52NCVC-552-10-2020 (Encl 9) (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the LACA did not amount to an absolute assignment; the bank had expressly consented to plaintiffs commencing litigation; therefore plaintiffs had locus standi and the defendant's strike out application was not a plain and obvious case for dismissal under Order 18 r.19 and was an abuse/afterthought intended to delay. The strike out application was disallowed with costs.