The court established that the validity of Settlement Agreements must comply with statutory regulations, and preliminary determinations can resolve significant claims efficiently, reducing the need for full trials.

I. Introduction To The Application

[1] This appeal by the First Defendant is on my decision allowing Enc. 95 which is the Plaintiffs' application under O 33 r 2 of the Rules Of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) for specific questions arising in this action to be tried before the trial of the cause is commenced. The translated English version of Enel. 95 reads as follows:

NOTICEOF APPLICATION

Let all parties concerned attend before the Judge in Chambers on 22 MAY 2025 10:00 AM on the hearing of an application on the Plaintiff under r 33 O 2, 3(2) and 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 for the following orders:

(1) The Court orders the legal issues below to be tried before or in lieu for full trial:

(a) Whether the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and First Defendant ("the Settlement Agreement") is valid or not?

(b) If the Court finds the Settlement Agreement valid, does the Settlement Agreement have the effect of estopping the First Defendant from taking legal action against Plaintiffs for the First Defendant's trespass claim ("Trespass Issue") against Plaintiffs?

(c) If the Court finds the Settlement Agreement invalid, would the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-146-03/2019 ("Suit 146") being revived? And can this Court declare the Notices of Discontinuance as null and void?

(2) The Court determines the mode of trial as follows:

(a) The Court proceeds with trial and decides the Plaintiffs claim in paragraph 37(a) of the Statement of Claim and First Defendant's counterclaim in paras 51.1 and 51.2 and its Statement of Counterclaim;

(b) The Court adjourns trial of First Defendant's Counterclaim in paragraphs 51.3 and 51.4 to determine whether it will be continued after deciding the issues given in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) above;

(c) The Court hears evidence from witnesses of the Plaintiffs and Defendants only on the background to the existence of the Settlement Agreement, namely First Plaintiff and Teh Kean Ming, already presented; and

(d) Subsequently, the Court hears arguments by Plaintiffs and Defendants on the issues raised in paras 1(a), (b) and (c) above and makes the decision thereon.

(3) Costs to be costs in the cause; and

(4) Any further relief deems fit and necessary.

The grounds of the application are as follows:

(i) There is no dispute that the Settlement Agreement signed by both parties;

(ii) With the withdrawal of the case against the Second to Ninth Defendants, this case is only focussed on one legal issue, namely the validity of the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and First Defendant;

(iii) Plaintiffs' position contends the Settlement Agreement is valid and enforceable while First Defendant's position is that the Settlement Agreement is invalid because it purportedly conflicts with provisions of the Strata Management Act 2013 ;

(iv) The Trespass Issue by Defendants is also closely related to the validity of the Settlement Agreement because the question whether First Defendant is estopped exists by it. This matter must be explained before the Court hears trial of it;

(v) The facts on the formation of the Settlement Agreement are not difficult. Only 2 witnesses need to be called to present the background of the Settlement Agreement, namely First Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant, to narrate the background of the Settlement Agreement from each party's perspective and experience. The witness statements of both parties prepared and filed in Court ca