Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4440
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LIM JOO SWEE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCvC-385-09/2023]
The court affirmed that claims must disclose reasonable causes of action and can be struck out if they are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, emphasizing the importance of legal standing in property disputes.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 Rule 19 - Striking out applications - Defendants sought to strike out Plaintiffs' claim on grounds of no reasonable cause of action, frivolousness, and abuse of process - Court held that claims were plainly unsustainable, invoking principles established in prior cases. (Paras 20, 21, 37, 48, 64, 78, 92, 123)
(B) Legal principles - The power to strike out claims should be exercised sparingly and only in plain and obvious cases - Claims must disclose reasonable causes of action and not be frivolous or vexatious. (Paras 20, 22)
(C) Findings of Court - Plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata, cause of action estoppel, and statute of limitations - Plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge land use changes as they held no registered interest in the properties. (Paras 48, 64, 78)
(D) Issues addressed - Whether the Plaintiffs' claims disclosed reasonable cause of action, whether the Defendants' applications were valid, and if the claims were time-barred. (Paras 64, 78, 92) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims were not only legally unsustainable but also procedurally improper, lacking necessary legal interests to challenge the Defendants. (Paras 64, 78, 92) (F) Result - Applications to strike out the claims allowed with costs awarded to the Defendants. (Paras 37, 129)
Introduction
[1] There are four (4) applications before this Court for determination, namely encls 10, 23, 36 and 40. All five (5) Defendants have filed these applications, each seeking to strike out the Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012). The Defendants invoke various grounds under r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, contending that the Plaintiffs' claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous, vexatious, and/or constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.
[2] Enclosure 10 is the Fourth Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 and/or under O 92 r 4 of the ROC 2012.
[3] Enclosure 23 is the Fifth Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) (a), (b), and/or (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the ROC 2012.
[4] Enclosure 36 is the First Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) (b) and/or (c) of the ROC 2012 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
[5] Enclosure 40 is an application by the Second and Third Defendants to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the ROC 2012.
Background Facts
[6] This suit arises from a long-standing dispute concerning two parcels of land—H.S.(D) 266270, PT 12397, Pekan Baru Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor (Lot 12397) and PN 99575, Lot 45198, Pekan Baru Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor (Lot 45198)— which originally formed part of a 63-acre tract of land alienated to the First Defendant by the State Authority in 1992 for the designated use of "Bangunan".
[7] The First and Second Defendants entered into a joint venture to develop the land in two distinct components: (i) a residential development comprising 99 bungalow lots marketed as "Selangor Polo Residency"; and (ii) a polo and equestrian centre. Pursuant to this arrangement, the First Defendant sold approximately 60.67 acres to the Second Defendant by way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 20 December 1994 and a Supplementary Agreement dated 19 May 1997. The First Defendant contended that its role thereafter was solely that of a bare trustee, responsible only for securing the issuance of titles and facilitating their transfer.
[8] Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) for the Bungalow Lots were executed between the First and/or Second Defendants and the original purchasers. Of the four Plaintiffs in this action, only the Fourth Plaintiff is an original purchaser (vide SPA dated 2 April 1999). The remaining Plaintiffs and most current owners acquired their bungalow lots through subsequent transfers. The Third Defendant, a related entity, was not a party to any SPA with the Plaintiffs.
[9] The remaining land, which did not form part of the bungalow development, was eventually subdivided into Lot 12397 and Lot 45198. Lot 12397 was registered in the name of the Third Defendant and designated as "Bangunan Perniagaan", while Lot 45198 was registered under the First Defendant with the designation "Padang Polo".
[10] A clubhouse with recreational amenities (the Clubhouse) was constructed on Lot 12397, and a polo field (the Polo Field) on Lot 45198. These facilities commenced operations around 2003 upon the issuance of the Certificate of Fitness for Occupation dated 28 June 2003 and were open to the public on a fee-paying basis. However, Both The Polo Field And The Clubhouse Ceased Operations In 2006 Due To Poor Financial Performance And Underutilisation.
[11] In 2008, the First Defendant applied to Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) for planning permission to amend the approved layout plan of Lot 45198 for the construction of 174 semi-detached houses (the Proposed Development). Pursuant to s 21 of the Town and C
