Back
2025 MarsdenLR 509
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SKS FOAM (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SKS INTEGRATED GROUP SDN BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: BA-24NCvC-369-02/2025]
A litigant can be declared vexatious if they engage in persistent and meritless litigation, obstructing judicial processes despite previous rulings.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Power to restrain vexatious litigants - The Defendant was declared a vexatious litigant for persistently resisting a liquidator's efforts to recover property, engaging in repetitive and meritless litigation. (Paras 1, 2, 14)
(B) Definition of vexatious litigant - A vexatious litigant is characterized by repeated lawsuits against the same party on the same cause of action, causing undue burden and inconvenience. (Paras 2, 3)
(C) Res judicata - The Defendant's opposition to the liquidation was deemed res judicata as all grounds to challenge the Vesting Order had been exhausted. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff sought to declare the Defendant a vexatious litigant due to a decade-long resistance against the liquidator's efforts to recover possession of property following a Vesting Order. The Defendant's multiple applications to set aside the Vesting Order were based on previously determined issues.
Findings of Court:
The Defendant's conduct constituted vexatious litigation, and the application to declare them as such was granted. Global costs of RM20,000.00 were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Issues: Whether the Defendant's actions constituted vexatious litigation and whether the grounds for opposing the Vesting Order had been exhausted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Defendant's persistent litigation and repeated attempts to challenge a final Vesting Order were vexatious, confirming that such conduct obstructs the legal process.
Result: The application to declare the Defendant a vexatious litigant was allowed.
(Enclosures 1 and 6)
[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff for an order that the Defendant be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to the additional power of the High Court in para 17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 that reads as follows:
"Power to restrain any person who has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings in any Court, whether against the same or different persons, from instituting any legal proceedings in any Court save by leave of a Judge. A copy of any such order shall be published in the Gazette"
[2] In Sim Kooi Soon v. Malaysia Airlines System (No 2) ; , the Court of Appeal identified the features of a vexatious litigant as someone who sues the same party repeatedly on essentially the same cause of action, has little or no basis in law to sue and whose actions has the effect of subjecting the opposing party to inconvenience. As summarised by Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Attorney-General v. Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759 at 764:
"The hallmark [of persistent and habitual litigious activity] usually is that the plaintiff sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim;... that the claimant automatically challenges every adverse decision on appeal; and that the claimant refuses to take any notice of or give any effect to orders of the Court. The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop. "
[3] The Defendant's principal objection to encl 1 is that the list of Court proceedings complained of by the Plaintiff emanated from enforcement actions initiated by the Plaintiff and that the Defendant is merely exercising its right to defend. This Court disagrees. Vexatious litigation is not limited to plaintiffs who bring groundless claims It also covers defendants who abuse the Court's process by filing endless applications or appeals simply to obstruct proceedings.
[4] In this case, the Defendant has for about a decade, been resisting efforts by the liquidator to recover possession of a property held under title No GM16606, Lot No 15842, Mukim Kapar, Daerah Klang ("Property") as part of his statutory function. The liquidator's efforts began with a vesting order granted by the winding-up Court on 29 May 2015 ("Vesting Order") in a clawback action that vested proprietorship over said Property back to the Plaintiff. The Defendant claims to be a bona fide purchaser of the Property.
[5] The first attempt to set aside the Vesting Order was vide an application filed within the Winding Up Petition No: 28-535-12/2012 ("Petition 535"). It failed. However, the Winding Up Order in Petition 535 was set aside on appeal for unrelated reasons (ie the Order was made by the Deputy Registrar and not a High Court Judge) and on 22-11 -2018, Petition 535 was remitted to the High Court for re-hearing.
[6] At this point, the Defendant took the position that the Vesting Order, which it characterised as being premised on the original Winding Up Order, was also rendered invalid and applied to set it aside ("Enclosure 255"). Enclosure 255 was heard and dismissed by the High Court who at the same time, made a second Winding Up Order within Petition 535.
[7] The Defendant's appeal against the dismissal of encl 255 was withdrawn, a move which had enduring consequences for the Defendant.
[8] The Defendant tried to set aside the Vesting Order again via a post winding-up application in BA-28PW-40-02/2020 ("PW40") for leave to commence proceedings against the Plaintiff under s 471 of the Companies Act 2016 to, inter alia, set aside the Vesting Order. PW40 was dismissed by the High Court and appeals to the Court of Appeal and Fe
