Key Points from the Judgment

1. Nature of the Claim: This is a claim for debt due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff. (!) [1]

2. Striking Out Application: The defendant applied to strike out the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it is barred by res judicata. The court allowed the application, finding the facts and issues identical to a previous claim, rendering the suit scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. (!) [2][3]

3. Background Facts - Plaintiff's Role and Debt Components: The plaintiff worked as a consultant for KPower Berhad (parent of defendant) from 2016-2017. Her husband was a director of the defendant. The claimed debt (RM1,181,940.48) includes: (a) plaintiff's expenses claims (RM244,391.62); (b) advance to supplier Aesbi (RM7,548.86); (c) advances to defendant (RM930,000). These were recorded as her husband's debts in defendant's accounts. (!) [4][5][6] (!) (!) (!) [7]

4. Previous Proceedings (Suit 176 and Appeal 1833): Plaintiff's husband sued defendant in Suit No WA-22NCvC-176-03/2019 for RM4,690,000; High Court awarded RM3,217,141.10 but dismissed RM1,472,858.90 (including this debt). Appeal dismissed. The debt was part of the dismissed portion, supported by same evidence (Quickbooks entries, claim forms, cheques, deposits). Husband testified it involved plaintiff's actions on his behalf. (!) [8][9][10] (!) [14][15] (!) (!) (!) [16]

5. Basis for Striking Out: Application under O 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) of Rules of Court 2012: claim is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Court may strike out pleadings/endorsements on these grounds and dismiss/stay action. (!) [11] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

6. Application of Res Judicata - Narrow Sense: The debt claim was fully adjudicated and dismissed on merits in prior High Court suit and upheld on appeal; same facts/issues prevent re-litigation. (!) [14][15][16][17]

7. Application of Res Judicata - Wider Sense: Even new causes of action (monies had and received, unjust enrichment, s 71 Contracts Act 1950) are barred if they arise from same facts/issues that could have been raised earlier with reasonable diligence. Applies despite plaintiff not being party to prior suit. (!) [20][21][22]

8. Res Judicata Across Different Parties: Doctrine prevents re-litigation of same facts, issues, circumstances, and reliefs even if parties differ, to avoid abuse of process, double claims, or re-use of same evidence/witnesses/documents. (!) [24][25] (!) [26] (!)

9. Res Judicata as Ground for Striking Out: Courts strike out under O 18 r 19 where res judicata renders claim plainly unsustainable, scandalous/frivolous/vexatious (limb (b)), or abuse of process (limb (d)). Court examines case history at filing date; inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse. (!) [26][27][28] (!) (!) [29][30] (!) (!) (!) [31][32]

10. Decision: Claim barred by res judicata in both narrow/wider senses; suit scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and abuse of process. Striking out application allowed with costs. (!) [33] (!)