The court emphasized the necessity for compliance with procedural rules in pleadings, allowing dismissal for defects that abuse the court process.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant a lawyer, is for the Defendant's conduct in handling a civil matter on behalf of the Plaintiff in a civil claim filed in the High Court of Shah Alam bearing the registration number 22NCVC-709-06/2012.

[2] After perusing the Plaintiff's claim, the Court struck off the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim for being defective in being noncompliance with the provisions of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules").

Defective Statement Of Claim (SOC)

[3] The 1st defect is that the entire contents of the Statement of Claim filed in the Shah Alam High Court was reproduced in the SOC. This reproduction is unnecessary and not allowed as it forms part of evidence to be adduced during the trial. Only facts and not the evidence that should be pleaded in the SOC.

[4] The reproduction of the entire statement of claim of the Shah Alam Court is a clear cut breach of O 18 r 7(1) which states as follows:

1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and rr 10, 11 and 12, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved, and the statement shall be as brief as the nature of the case admits.

[Emphasis Mine]

[5] The 2nd defect is the non-clarity of the cause of action relied upon by the Plaintiff in the SOC. Paragraph 10 of the SOC is worded as follows:

"Defendan dalam pelanggaran kontrak dan/ atau secara lalai gagal melaksanakan penjagaan dan kemahiran ynag diharapkan oleh peguamcara yang kompeten".

[6] A reading of this paragraph indicates that the cause of action is either a breach of contract or a breach of fiduciary duty. However further down in the same paragraph of the SOC is stated as follows:

"Oleh sebab butiran kecuaian di atas Plaintif- Plaintif telah mengalami kerugian".

[7] The subsequent paragraph seems to indicate the cause of action relied upon by the Plaintiffs is negligence. It is this negligence according to the Plaintiff in the SOC that has caused the losses suffered by the Plaintiffs.

[8] As the cause of action in the SOC is unclear it breaches O 18 r 12(1):

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), every pleading shall contain the necessary particulars of any claim, defence or other matter pleaded including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words- [Emphasis Mine]

(a) particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence on which the party pleading relies; and

[9] The 3rd defect in the SOC is that the Plaintiffs have quantified the losses suffered by claiming a specific sum which is the same amount claimed in the Shah Alam High Court. This is tantamount to litigating a matter decided earlier by another Court. This is clear abuse of the process of Court.

[10] A further defect in specifying the amount of damages in the SOC breaches O 18 r 12 1A which states:

(1A) No party shall quantify any claim or counterclaim for general damages.

Powers Of The Court In Striking Out The SOC

[11] The Court has been given wide powers under O 34 of the Rules to ensure a just, expeditious and economical disposal of a case. Order 34 r 1 states;

1. Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O 34 r 1)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of proceedings, of its own motion, direct any party or parties to the proceedings to appear before the Court, in order that the Court may make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit so that [Emphasis Mine]

(a) all matters which must or can be dealt with on interlocutory applications an