Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application (documented in encl 59) by the fourth defendant, in the counterclaim to the main action, to strike out the writ and the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in the counterclaim under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("the RC 2012").

[2] At the conclusion of the hearing which was conducted via zoom remote communication technology, I allowed the application and provided the principal grounds for the same. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.

Key Background Facts

[3] The present suit was initiated by the plaintiff company in the main action against the defendant law firm (for all intents and purposes the plaintiff in the counterclaim). It is essentially a dispute between a client and its solicitors, arising from works said to have been performed by the law firm.

[4] The law firm had billed its client (the first defendant in the counterclaim) a total of RM1,333,288.00 for work done in respect of certain legal proceedings. Even though the first defendant considered it excessive, the sum of RM1,054,000.00 was paid to the solicitors (the plaintiff in the counterclaim) as interi