Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out under order 18 r 19 roc 2012

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2025

NG WAI PIN ONG YEW TEIK

Citation

02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

02(i)-38-09/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Majority held that the defendants D1–D5 were entitled to absolute witness immunity in respect of the evidence given in Suit 1333 and related preparatory acts, that the plaintiff's claims fell within core immunity and/or were an abuse of process and res judicata, and that malicious prosecution is not to be extended to civil proceedings in Malaysia; accordingly the claims against the appellants were unsustainable and properly struck out.
26 Apr 2024

TAY KUAN TEA @ TAY SWEE SENG PHOON YUH JIUN

Citation

WA-22NCC-761-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-761-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant could not rely on limitation because she failed to plead it as required by Section 4 Limitation Act 1953; the pleaded amounts exactly correspond to the companies' 2014 accumulated losses and, on the face of the pleadings and contemporaneous audited accounts, the wrong (if any) was to the companies not the plaintiff personally; the statement of claim lacks necessary material particulars and is inconsistent with documents, disclosing no reasonable cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, therefore the action is struck out and costs awarded.
10 Jan 2023

TAN SRI ROZALI BIN ISMAIL ABDUL HADI BIN HAMAD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-112-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-112-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A court-appointed Hakam, exercising functions under s48 Act 303 and Practice Direction No.1/2006, is a person acting judicially and is therefore protected by common law judicial immunity and by statutory immunity under s14(1) and s14(2) Courts of Judicature Act 1964; statements and acts coram judice are further protected by absolute privilege; the proceedings also constituted duplicity of proceedings given pending Syariah appeals; accordingly the Sessions Court’s striking out of the writs was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2021

PERTAMA PERDAGANGAN SDN BHD & 5 LAGI BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT (M) BERHAD

Citation

KA-22NCvC-63-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-63-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The striking out applications were dismissed because on the face of the pleadings the Plaintiff disclosed reasonable causes of action raising serious questions of fact and law (not plainly and obviously unsustainable), including fraud, collusion and contract breach, which require full trial and viva voce evidence; res judicata/estoppel issues likewise require trial determination.
21 Apr 2021

1. TRIP4ASIA SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1085865-A) 2. MBI MARKETING SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 869919-D) DESTINI BERHAD & 7 LAGI (No. Syarikat: 633265-K)

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1455-08/2019 & DIDENGAR BERSAMA 7 KES BERKAITAN (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1455-08/2019 & DIDENGAR BERSAMA 7 KES BERKAITAN (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants 4 to 9 disclosed no reasonable cause of action because there was no contractual relationship or communication (no privity or nexus), the Plaintiffs were strangers to the Passenger Services Agreement and lacked locus to impugn it, and the alleged discrepancies in documents and emails did not establish fraud or conspiracy; therefore the High Court rightly struck out those claims and the appeals were dismissed.
10 Feb 2021

Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad Mohammad Hafizi bin Bahari Dan 1 Lagi

Citation

WA-22NCC-449-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-449-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Assuming the Statement of Claim true, the pleadings disclose at least prima facie causes of action in conspiracy to defraud, fraud and unjust enrichment that are not plainly and obviously unsustainable; therefore the strike out application under O.18 r.19 was dismissed. The transfer application was dismissed because, on the facts, transfer would not be in the interests of justice, would cause undue delay and Kuala Lumpur was an appropriate forum in the 'new normal' with remote hearing technology. Enc.3 (interim injunction) was allowed previously; Enc.20 (strike out) and Enc.33 (transfer) were…
5 Jan 2021

Syed Abdul Rahman bin Tuan Kuning 1. CIMB Bank Berhad 2. Southeast Asia Special Assets

Citation

WA-22NCC-311-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-311-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the face of the pleaded Statement of Claim, assuming the pleaded facts true, the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action that allegations of concealment of the 2007 NOD may amount to fraud under s.44 Evidence Act 1950 and materially affected the prior judgment; such allegations raise triable issues that cannot be resolved by summary striking out under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012, therefore both strike out applications were dismissed and the action allowed to proceed to full trial.

Malaysia Case Law

NG WAI PIN ONG YEW TEIK

TAY KUAN TEA @ TAY SWEE SENG PHOON YUH JIUN

TAN SRI ROZALI BIN ISMAIL ABDUL HADI BIN HAMAD

PERTAMA PERDAGANGAN SDN BHD & 5 LAGI BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT (M) BERHAD

1. TRIP4ASIA SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1085865-A) 2. MBI MARKETING SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 869919-D) DESTINI BERHAD & 7 LAGI (No. Syarikat: 633265-K)

Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad Mohammad Hafizi bin Bahari Dan 1 Lagi

Syed Abdul Rahman bin Tuan Kuning 1. CIMB Bank Berhad 2. Southeast Asia Special Assets