Back
2024 MarsdenLR 3353
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
TROPICANA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN TROPICANA GRANDE CONDOMINIUMS – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCvC-53-02/2024]
Finality of court orders prohibits re-litigation of the same issues, establishing the principle of res judicata and preventing abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Strata Titles Act 1985 - Res judicata - Abuse of process - Plaintiff sought to set aside a final Order made in OS 158, but the Court found the action to be res judicata and an abuse of process due to the finality of the Order and ongoing parallel proceedings in Suit 13. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 23)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a former property manager, challenged the Defendant's enforcement of an Order for delivery of documents, which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, and subsequently filed a new action.
Findings of Court:
The action was struck out as it was deemed frivolous and vexatious, with costs awarded to the Defendant.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Plaintiff's challenge to the final Order and whether the action constituted an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that re-litigation of a final Order is barred by res judicata, and the Plaintiff's actions amounted to an abuse of judicial resources.
Result: Action struck out.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff filed this action on 9 February 2024 to set aside or invalidate an Order made by another High Court in Originating Summons No: BA-24NCvC-158-02/2022 dated 8 July 2022 ("Order in OS 158"); or alternatively, to declare that the Plaintiff has complied with the Order in OS 158, restrain the Defendant by an injunction from enforcing it and stay its execution.
[2] On 15 May 2024, the Defendant applied in encl 8 to strike out the action on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process. After reading all written submissions filed and hearing the arguments of counsel on 30 September 2024, I allowed encl 8 on 18 October 2024 and struck out the action with costs of RM5,000.00.
[3] The following are my reasons for striking out this action.
Background Facts
[4] The Defendant is the management corporation of Tropicana Grande Condominium ("Property") properly formed under the Strata Titles Act 1985 . The Plaintiff is the former property manager appointed by the Defendant to manage the Property.
[5] The Plaintiff's services were not renewed and the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant terminated on 31 December 2021.
Order For Delivery Up - OS 158
[6] An issue arose with the handing over of the documents, records and/or assets relating to the management of the Property by the Plaintiff. The Defendant sued the Plaintiff and obtained the Order in OS 158 that ordered the Plaintiff to deliver a list of such documents, records and/or assets.
[7] On 19 September 2023, the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal against the Order in OS 158 in Civil Appeal No B-02(NCvC)(A)-1493-08/2022. As there was no further appeal against the Court of Appeal decision, the Order in OS 158 is final.
[8] Incidentally, the Plaintiff had also filed a separate interlocutory application in encl 16 on 11 July 2024 to stay the execution of the Order in Suit 158. I also dismissed encl 16 on 18 October 2024 since it is a final Order of another High Court which has been affirmed on appeal.
Parallel Proceedings - Suit 13
[9] Disputes between the parties persisted after the conclusion of OS 158, including disputes relating to the Plaintiff's compliance with the Order in OS 158. On 12 January 2024, the Defendant filed Suit No BA-22NCvC-13-01/2024 ("Suit 13") against the Plaintiff for inter alia, breach of the property management agreement.
[10] The Defendant also pleaded a claim in detinue in Part E of the Statement of Claim in Suit 13, specifically alleging the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Order in OS 158 and seeking damages. In the face of the detinue claim, I asked counsel for the Plaintiff if his client's Defence in Suit 13 must be that the Plaintiff has complied, the very declaration sought here. That seemed a reasonable assumption.
[11] After the hearing of encl 8 on 30 September 2024, this Court reserved decision and asked counsel for the Plaintiff to consider the option of amending the pleadings in Suit 13 if necessary, to include the prayers involving the Order in OS 158. Counsel for the Defendant confirmed that Suit 13 was at pleadings stage. This would have avoided the duplicity of proceedings complained of.
[12] The Plaintiff declined to take up the suggestion of bringing this action to Suit 13 by way of an amendment to the pleadings there.
Analysis And Findings
Res Judicata
[13] During the hearing of encl 8, counsel for the Plaintiff quite rightly, decided not to contest the arguments made that this Court has no power to set aside the final Order in OS 158, there being to allegation here that it is a nullity due to breach of natural justice, illegality or want of jurisdiction. See Ooi Bee Tat Ooi Bee Lee v. Ooi Bee Tat & Sons Sdn Bhd & Anor; , citing Hock Hua Bank Bhd v. Sahari Murid ; and Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd; [1998] 2 CLJ 75; [1998] 1 AMR 909.
[14] As the Order in OS 158 is final, it is also trite that any attempt to re-litigate it
