A claim must be supported by substantive material facts, not mere assumptions; failure to do so can lead to striking out the claim as an abuse of process.

Introduction

[1] In this case the Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiffs claim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules 2012 ("the Rules"). Order 18 r 19 of the Rules stipulates as follows:

19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O 18 r 19)

(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that-

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.

(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a).

The Plaintiffs' Claim

[2] The Plaintiffs were joint account holders of 2 Al-Wadiah Saving Accounts ("the Accounts") with Public Islamic Bank Sdn Bhd at the Overseas Union Branch. Both the accounts had a sum of money to with RM760,000 in one account and RM690,000 in another account.

[3] The relevant facts of the Plaintiffs' claim is that they withdrew various sums of money from their account on various dates after the 1st Plaintiff received a call from a person who identified himself as Sgn Long, a police officer purportedly conducting a criminal investigation against the 1st Plaintiff involving illegal money transactions.

[4] On being threatened with criminal prosecution the 1st Plaintiff followed the instructions of Sgn Long by transferring the money to the account as directed by the said Sgn Long.

[5] The Plaintiff stated that he accepted and believed whatever that was instructed by the said Sgn Long, as Sgn Long had the accurate details of all his confidential particulars as well as the information of both the Bank accounts to the extent of the exact amount of monies kept in both the accounts.

[6] According to the Plaintiffs this information was only available to the Defendant and its employees. According to the Plaintiff the Defendant was not only liable of divulging confidential information or allowing the confidential information to be leaked but was also in a breach of duty towards the Plaintiffs as its customers to maintain confidentiality and safeguard personal information.

[7] The claim against the Defendant arose when the Plaintiffs realized that they were victims of a scam and a fraudulent scheme resulting in them losing the monies kept in their accounts. The Plaintiffs are asking the Defendant to make good their losses.

Cause Of Action/ Abuse Of Process/ Prejudicial

[8] For a striking off application for want of cause of action no evidence is allowed to be adduced. In other words the lack of cause of action must be determined from the facts stated in the Statement of Claim itself.

[9] In this case the Court notes that apart from an assumption that the confidential information of the Plaintiffs was leaked by the Defendant there are no substantive facts stated to support the assumption of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant.

[10] It is trite law that all material facts must be pleaded in order to support a cause of action against any party in a civil proceeding. This is clearly stated under O 18 r 7 of the Rules as follows:

7. Facts, not evidence, to be pleaded (O 18 r 7)

(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 fact