Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out under order 18 r.19

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2024

CHENG HIN TENG 1. ) DR ANUAR BIN MD YASIN 2. ) PUSAT PAKAR KLUANG UTAMA SDN BHD

Citation

J-02(IM)-858-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

J-02(IM)-858-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the handwritten notes obtained in 2012 were not truly new evidence — they could and should have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the first trial; the 2nd Suit thus constitutes an impermissible second bite at the cherry and an abuse of process, so res judicata applies and the strike‑out under Order 18 r.19 was correctly allowed (costs RM10,000).
26 Jun 2024

1. ) MARILYN BU SEONG 2. ) MORNA BINTI BU SEONG 3. ) YAP WAI LEONG 4. ) NGION LEE NA 5. ) LIM MING ZHI 6. ) SOH AN NEE 7. ) TAN JU WINN 8. ) JAU POOL LING 9. ) WONG VUI CHYANG 10. ) LEE HUI KEING 11. ) FABIAN WONG PU CHIANG 12. ) FERRIS WON

Citation

WA-22NCvC-367-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-367-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 2nd Defendant was struck out because plaintiffs failed to plead or adduce facts establishing the necessary elements (fraud, concealment or evasion) to justify lifting or piercing the corporate veil; there was no contractual relationship or payments to the 2nd Defendant and mere holding company status and advertising assistance are insufficient to make the holding company liable.
28 Jun 2022

CHAN KOI HONG @ CHANG KOUI FANG 1. ) WEE HONG LIAN 2. ) CHUA SIEW YOON 3. ) CHUA MARY DZEAN 4. ) PUBLIC ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 5. ) TETUAN WAN JAWAHIR & TAKIYUDDIN

Citation

DA-24NCvC-42-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-24NCvC-42-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was struck out because the plaintiff lacked locus standi to sue (not a party to the contracts and GISB a separate legal entity, and GISB was dissolved requiring leave under Companies Act provisions), the intitulement failed to specify the applicable rules/statutes thereby prejudicing defendants, and a prior High Court decision addressing the same issues rendered the present proceedings an abuse of process (functus officio). Consequently Notice K14 was allowed and the originating summons dismissed; the disqualification application K16 was dismissed as academic.
30 May 2022

CHAN WAI CHOON (membawa guaman sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka CHAN MING, Simati) MEGA DYNAMIC RESOURCES SDN BHD (dahulu dikenali sebagai Mega Dynamic M&E Sdn Bhd)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court struck out the writ and statement of claim because the present claim concerns the same subject matter and substantially the same issues as were disposed of in the earlier High Court proceedings (Guaman 637), the prior matter was finally determined by a regularly obtained order which was not appealed, and permitting re-litigation would be an abuse of process; accordingly the pleadings disclose no sustainable cause of action under Order 18 r.19 and the doctrine of res judicata/issue estoppel applies.
20 Apr 2022

Fun Fatt (Menyaman Sebagai Pentadbir Dan Benefisiari Tunggal Harta Pusaka Lo Pang @ Fun Lim, Si Mati) DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-416-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-416-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court: on the face of the pleadings and the documented administrative record the appellant lacked locus standi when the suit was filed because the land had been lawfully taken and vested (Form H/Form K and memorial endorsed); compensation (including for early occupation) was before and dealt with in acquisition proceedings and the appellant accepted the award without timely objection; the claim was therefore barred by the Land Acquisition Act remedies and res judicata and also time-barred/defeated by PAPA, rendering the pleading o…
18 Apr 2022

PEMBINAAN SP CHAI SDN BERHAD DOLOMITE INDUSTRIES COMPANY SDN BERHAD

Citation

WA-22C-84-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-84-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the alleged oral agreement and threats were unpleaded or unsupported and implausible, and the audit confirmation did not amount to a written acknowledgement under s.27; accordingly the cause of action accrued earlier and the claim was time‑barred, making striking out appropriate as an abuse of process.
12 Jan 2022

GROUP SEVEN SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. 1389127-U) LAMAN PESONA SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. 929873-U)

Citation

CB-22NCVC-11-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCVC-11-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff waived objection to the Defendant's affidavit by filing a reply; on the affidavits and pleadings there was no evidence of a contractual relationship because Group Seven was incorporated after the alleged agreement and Mr Ivan lacked authority to bind it, rendering the claim plainly unsustainable under O.18 r.19; accordingly the Defendant's strike out application is allowed and the interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
6 Jan 2022

LEW ON @ LEW TEE YEE MOHAMMAD BIN MUHAMED AVVUU And / or all those who are claimed against, on the property that is held under the Title GRN 529187 LOT 58790, Simpang Kanan Sub District, Batu Pahat District, Johore PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) SETIAMA

Citation

JB-22NCVC-44-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCVC-44-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused Setiamas Sdn Bhd's strike out application because the third party claim raised triable issues and was not 'obviously unsustainable'; the court allowed Batu Pahat Municipal Council's strike out application because the council had no statutory power or nexus regarding land subdivision, issuance or transfer of titles and thus the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action; the court held Order 16 r.4 is permissive ('may') and failure to seek directions is not fatal; limitation did not bar the third party claim as time ran from service of the writ.
8 Oct 2021

EXTREME REWARDS SDN BHD SINO PATH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-38-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-38-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counterclaim was struck out because it constituted an abusive and defective pleading introduced as an afterthought, raised issues that were academic or no longer live after the consent judgment in OS 311 (res judicata), and included at least one prayer (declaration that RM1,268,750 was a personal loan) that was unsustainable in light of prior summary judgment; therefore striking out under O.18 r.19(1)(d) was appropriate.
11 Jun 2021

MICHAEL ERROLL HYDE (NO. PASSPORT 554397763) 1. ) PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 200601036174 / 755933-K) 2. )

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-287-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-287-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeals dismissed: the EOT was valid and expressly incorporated into the SPAs signed by the plaintiffs; causes of action accrued on signing the SPAs so the writ claims were time‑barred under the Limitation Act 1953; the claims raised public law issues (validity of EOT) that should have been pursued by timely judicial review, and the writ proceedings were accordingly an abuse of process and properly struck out or refused summary judgment.