Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out under order 18 r19

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2025

YAP YEE HOO 1. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) MZ DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 5. ) PGCC ASSETS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 6. ) PARAGON PINNACLE SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-48-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-48-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the SPAs were executed after a winding-up petition had been presented and no validation order was sought, they are void ab initio; the Plaintiff's contract claim accrued more than six years before commencement and is time-barred under s6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953; the pleaded allegations of fraud lack particulars and cannot invoke s29 to postpone limitation; consequently the claim discloses no triable issue and must be struck out.
17 Nov 2025

1. ) THIRTEEN WINGS SDN BHD 2. ) ASHWIN KUMAR KANDIAH 3. ) ASTRIKE SDN BHD 4. ) AXCEND SDN BHD 5. ) TURBO BOOZE SDN BHD 6. ) HOPS SDN BHD 1. ) HEINEKEN MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) HEINEKEN MARKETING MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia

Citation

WA-22NCvC-221-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-221-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that subsection 64(1) of the Competition Act 2010 creates an independent private right of action and does not require a prior finding of infringement by the MyCC; therefore the Plaintiffs may commence and maintain civil proceedings notwithstanding absence of any MyCC determination, and the Defendants' Order 14A application to strike out the Competition Act pleadings is dismissed.
3 Mar 2025

1. ) RADIANT SPLENDOUR SDN BHD 2. ) RAJESH A/L JAIKISHAN DR MOHAMMAD HANIS BIN OSMAN

Citation

WA-22M-1515-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-1515-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court struck out the Writ and Statement of Claim because the SOC failed to plead a reasonable cause of action against the defendant (defective particulars and lack of causative link), the defendant was the wrong party for claims arising from settlement agreements to which he was not a party and which predated his tenure, the plaintiffs' claims amounted to an abuse of process and duplicative litigation barred by issue estoppel, and reliance on informal ministerial notes did not convert into binding directions under s16 Bank Rakyat Act; accordingly the claim was plainly unsustainable and ve…
14 Aug 2024

ALIPAWPAW ENTERPRISE 1. ) CHEN NIKKI 2. ) GREEN HARMONY PET SUPPLIES

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-75-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-75-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where the dispute is between the partners inter se, Order 77 r1 and the Partnership Act do not justify instituting the action in the firm name; the proper course is for the individual partner to sue in their own name. Consequently the Sessions Court did not err in striking out the Writ and Statement of Claim and its decision is affirmed; appeals dismissed with costs.
27 Jun 2022

PEMPETISYEN Lim Shuk Kim for the Petitioner [MessrsTan Chuan Yong & S.M Chan] Andrew Fernandez for the Respondent [Messrs Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff]

Citation

WA-28NCC-163-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-163-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to make a prima facie case of inability to pay under s465(1)(e): available financial evidence (assets, valuations, OR report, independent solvency review) prima facie showed sufficient assets to meet liabilities; the debt was genuinely disputed by ongoing SIAC arbitration such that the adjudication decision may be overridden; the just and equitable ground was not pleaded with particulars; the petitioner did not stand outside the winding up notwithstanding a prior proof of debt. Consequently the petition was obviously unsustainable and s…
29 May 2022

DIANA ANN SEAH JOUSEPH A/L JOHNSON

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-1457-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-1457-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court allowed Defendant's striking out application: supporting affidavit was admitted (filed same day and no prejudice), but the writ and statement of claim were irregular because plaintiff failed to endorse occupation as required; critically the retainer clause (35% of award) was champertous/contingent and therefore unlawful and void under s112(1)(b) Legal Profession Act 1976 and ss24/25 Contracts Act 1950, rendering the claim unsustainable. On alternative reasoning the court accepted Plaintiff's contention that any recoverable claim only accrued on the insurer payment in 2018, but primary b…
17 May 2022

TNO MOLECQ (SA) SDN BHD 1. ) TANJONG WAHYU SDN BHD 2. ) PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR

Citation

BA-22NCvC-55-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-55-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the face of the pleadings and affidavits the Statement of Claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against Defendant 2 because the Sale and Purchase Agreement contains no express obligations imposed on Defendant 2 and Plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing Defendant 2's liability or nexus to the alleged breaches; accordingly the claim against Defendant 2 is obviously unsustainable and was struck out under Order 18 r19 with costs.
27 Jan 2022

1. ) Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 2. ) RAUB MINING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SDN BHD 3. ) RAUB OIL MILL SDN BHD 4. ) WAHBUNGA REALTY SDN BHD 5. ) YUM SDN BHD 6. ) BERJAYA REALTY SDN BHD 7. ) GRANDFOODS SDN BHD 8. ) LEAD ENTERPRISES SDN BHD 9. ) G

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-803-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-803-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Claims against the 2nd to 11th defendants were struck out because they were not parties to the Shareholders Agreement and therefore not bound by it (privity of contract); companies own their assets and shareholders have no proprietary interest in those assets; alleged trusts over registered shares cannot be enforced against the companies or entered in the register under Companies Act s110(4); absent a serious issue to be tried against those defendants, the interlocutory injunctions and ad-interim injunction must be set aside.
19 Jan 2022

1. ) CHONG HION CHOONG 2. ) BRANDKER CAPITAL SDN BHD 3. ) BIG WAVE GROUP SDN BHD DATO' TONY LOOI CHEE HONG

Citation

BA-23CY-8-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-8-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim, although not pleaded in the original Chinese verbatim, identified the publications and included Malay translations which, together with the Chinese transcript and certified translation later exhibited, disclosed a prima facie cause of action; the defects related to form and particularisation were curable by amendment and did not render the claim obviously unsustainable, therefore the striking out application must be dismissed and leave granted to amend.
12 Jan 2022

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2008-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2008-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Claims against the 2nd to 11th defendants were struck out because they were not parties to the Shareholders Agreement and the doctrine of privity together with the separate legal personality of companies means the plaintiff cannot enforce the agreement against those companies; trusts over shares are not effective against companies' registers (Companies Act s110(4)); consequently there were no serious issues to be tried against those defendants and the related interlocutory injunctions were set aside. The sole claim against the 1st defendant retained triable issues and that appeal was dismisse…