The filing of an appeal can be barred by the doctrine of estoppel if issues related to the legal entity were not previously raised.

Introduction

[1] The defendants filed an application pursuant to O 18 r 19 RoC seeking an order to strike out the plaintiff's writ (hereinafter referred to as 'encl 32').

[2] The plaintiff filed an application pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of Courts 2012 (RoC) seeking an order to enter summary judgment against the defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'encl 36').

[3] On 11 May 2015, the parties' counsels presented their oral and written submissions before me. On 25 February 2016, I pronounced my decisions. The delay in delivering my decision will be explained in my judgment. In my decisions, I allowed the defendant's striking out application - encl 32; and, consequently, encl 36 was dismissed.

[4] The plaintiff was not satisfied with my decisions and filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 23 March 2016. The reasons for my decisions are set out as below.

Background Facts

The 2013 Suit

[5] The parties' disputes arose from an earlier civil suit action 22NCVC-46-3/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 suit').

[6] In the 2013 suit, the defendants were the parties who sued the plaintiff, and they sued in their business trading name known as "LHB Enterprise".

[7] The defendants through LHB Enterprise obtained a summary judgment (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') against the plaintiff in the 2013 suit.

[8] The plaintiff did not apply to set aside the impugned judgment, and neither did the plaintiff file an appeal. The plaintiff also did not file an application to abridge the time to file application to set aside or appeal against the impugned judgment. The plaintiff did not take any step after the impugned judgment was entered against it.

The Present Suit

[9] In May 2014, the plaintiff filed this civil suit. The plaintiff named the defendants as individuals as the parties being sued, not LHB Enterprise. The plaintiff sought an order from this Court, inter alia, to set aside the impugned judgment. The plaintiff filed encl 36 to enter summary judgment against the defendants.

[10] The plaintiff argued that the impugned judgment entered on 12 September 2013 was null and void on the ground of illegality, because at the time the impugned judgment was granted in favour of the defendants in the name of "LHB Enterprise", the partnership between the defendants trading under the name "LHB Enterprise" was no longer subsisting.

[11] The plaintiff averred that the defendants' business registration with the authority Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as 'SSM') had expired on 11 March 2010. The plaintiff also averred that the defendants did not renew its business registration with SSM after the expiry date.

[12] The plaintiff's contention was that in view that LHB Enterprise did not renew its business registration with SSM after it had expired on 11 March 2010, the suing party, LHB Enterprise, was non-existent at the time the suit was filed on 13 March 2013.

[13] In other words, the 2013 suit was defective, because the suing party was a non-existing entity. Following from there, the impugned judgment dated 12 September 2013 granted under the name of "LHB Enterprise", was also defective and illegal, the plaintiff's counsel argued. The plaintiff's application to enter summary judgment was mainly premised on this ground.

[14] The main ground the defendants relied on to strike out the plaintiff's writ was that the plaintiff's action was an abuse of Court process.

The Findings Of This Court

[15] The facts in support of the parties' applications were inter-related. The Court proposed to first examine the striking out application by the defendants.

Enclosure 32 - Striking Out

[16] The defendants' counsel submitted that the ultimate rea