The court ruled that a claim should not be struck out unless it is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, emphasizing the necessity of a full trial to resolve factual disputes.

JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] Is this the case of a benevolent uncle? It might appear so if the Plaintiff's narrative is accepted. However, according to the Defendant, the reality is quite different.

[2] This case involves the Plaintiff suing the Defendant for the return of monies which, according to the Plaintiff, were advanced as a friendly loan. The Plaintiff is the Defendant's uncle, but the Defendant disputes the claim, asserting instead that the monies received were utilized for share transactions carried out on the Plaintiff's instructions. Notably, the Plaintiff has initiated similar claims against the Defendant's wife and mother.

[3] Additionally, the Plaintiff has filed a separate action against the same Defendant, alleging that another loan was given to fund the Defendant's venture into a cafe business.

[4] Initially, two interlocutory applications were before this Court : Enclosures 12 and 33.

[5] Enclosure 33, an application for discovery filed by the Plaintiff, has since been withdrawn.

[6] What remains for determination is encl 12, the Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's action pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012.

The Central Issue

[7] The essential issue is whether this is a proper case for this Court to exercise its powers to strike out the Plaintiff's action pursuant to O 18, r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012.

The Parties' Respective Contention

[8] In support of his application to strike out the Plaintiff's action in encl 12, the Defendant adopted a two-prong approach.

[9] There was no loan to start with, argued the Defendant.

[10] Essentially, it was the Defendant's submission that the Plaintiff's pleadings in seeking to recover a loan given to the Defendant was premised on an alleged untrue allegation and contradicts the contemporaneous documents.

[11] The Defendant pressed on the point that the contemporaneous documents reveal that the monies transferred into his account was to buy, sell and/or trade shares in Straits Energy Resources Berhad ("SERB").

[12] The Defendant further contended that the Plaintiff's claim for return of Outstanding Sum is unsustainable because the contemporaneous documents show that the proceeds of the sale of SERB's shares have been paid from the Defendant's account to third parties in accordance with the Plaintiff's purported instructions.

[13] The Defendant also substantiated his case for striking out by asserting that the action of the Plaintiff in transferring the monies into his account to carry out "transactions" as per the Plaintiff's instructions is tainted with illegality as it allegedly contravenes ss 188 and 317 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 and s 219 of the Companies Act 2016 .

[14] On the unlawful and illegality assertation, the Defendant referred this Court to cases such as Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd, Ideal Advantage Sdn Bhd v. Perbadanan Pengurusan Palm Spring @ Damansara and another appeal ; [2020] 4 MLJ 93; [2019] 5 AMR 201 , Dr Mansur Hussain & Ors v. Barisan Tenaga Perancang (M) Sdn Bhd &Ors and Worldwide Platinum Records Sdn Bhd v. Tan Sew Cheng ; 2024 MarsdenLR 1238 ; .

[15] In reply to the submissions by the Defendant, the Plaintiff maintained that the WhatsApp messages pertaining to the alleged trading of shares on behalf of the Plaintiff "failed to provide any context with respect to the WhatsApp messages".

[16] The Plaintiff also took issue with the Defendant's contention that proceeds of sales of SERB' shares had been paid to third parties based on the Plaintiff's purported instructions. The crux of this contention is that the Defendant had failed to adduce any payment slips to show that money had been transferred to any third party.

[17] Regarding the issue of unlawfulness and illegality, the Plaintiff contended that, first, this argument was presented from the bar, and second, any invocation of the C