Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3046
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
GAN THYE KUAN – Appellant
Versus
GAN THYE JIAN & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCvC-404-07/2020]
Court emphasized strict adherence to case management directions for timely resolution of cases, striking out plaintiff's action for non-compliance.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 34 r 2(3) – Striking out of action – Plaintiff's action struck out for non-compliance with pre-trial case management directions due to delays and lack of cooperation, resulting in hindrance to timely resolution of the dispute involving family members. (Paras 32-39)
(B) Contempt of Court – The court emphasized the need for adherence to case management timelines to prevent abuse of process and ensure just and expeditious disposal of cases. (Paras 35-36)
Facts of the case: The plaintiff, alleging misappropriation of funds from joint accounts, filed an action against his siblings but failed to comply with multiple case management orders, leading to the striking out of his claim.
Findings of Court: The court determined that the plaintiff's repeated failures to adhere to its directions warranted the dismissal of his action to uphold the integrity of the litigation process.
Issues: The main issues included the plaintiff's failure to comply with case management directions and the implications for trial readiness, as well as the necessity for a timely resolution given the familial context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff's consistent non-compliance demonstrated contempt for the court's authority, disrupting judicial efficiency and the rights of other parties involved.
Result: Plaintiff's action struck out, with costs awarded to the defendants.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] On 15 September 2021, I struck off the Plaintiffs ("P") action due to his non-compliance with pre-trial case management ("PTCM") directions. Here are my reasons for doing so.
[2] P and the three Defendants in the original action ("Defendants") are siblings. The Defendants are individually referred to as the 1st Defendant ("D1"), 2nd Defendant ("D2") and 3rd Defendant ("D3"). The 4th Plaintiff in the counterclaim is the mother of P and the Defendants ("Mother").
Plaintiffs Case
[3] P and the Defendants had opened several joint accounts ("Joint Accounts") in various banks ("Banks") as follows:
[4] The money in the Joint Accounts belong to Mother. P alleges that the said monies are to be used only for business purposes and not for personal use. Any withdrawal must be agreed by all the holders of the respective Joint Accounts. Notwithstanding that the bank mandate only require the signatures of any 2 account holder. Or where there are only 2 account holders, either one is to sign.
[5] On 25 March 2020, P discovered that there had been 3 withdrawals from a particular Joint Account held at UOB Bank ("Withdrawal") as follows:
[6] P avers that the Withdrawal was not known to him and no prior discussion had taken place between the parties regarding the same. P alleges that the Defendants have misused the money from the Withdrawal for their own use. P claims that Mother is of unsound mind due to Parkinson's disease leading to dementia. P lodged a police report ("Police Report") and caused the Banks to freeze the Joint Accounts.
[7] In the Amended Statement of Claim, P prayed for:
(a) an order that the money from the Withdrawal be returned to the relevant UOB Bank Joint Account; and
(b) a declaration that any withdrawal of money from the Joint Accounts can only be done with the consent and signature of all the parties who are the holders of the respective Joint Accounts.
Defendants' Case
[8] According to the Defendants, Mother had inherited approximately RM58 million from her late husband in 2018. Mother distributed RM25 million of the said inheritance to 8 of her children, including P, as a gift of love and affection. After the said distribution, there was a balance of approximately RM33 million belonging to Mother ("Mother's Money"). Mother instructed P and the Defendants to:- (a) deposit Mother's Money into the Joint Accounts; and (b) hold Mother's Money on trust.
[9] In April 2020 (during the Movement Control Order that was implemented due to the Covid-19 pandemic), the Defendants were informed that the Joint Accounts had been frozen by the Banks on the instruction of P's previous solicitors ("Previous Solicitors"). On 20 April 2020 and again on 14 September 2020, the Defendants wrote to the Banks to:- (a) uplift the wrongful freezing of the Bank Accounts; and (b) request for documentary evidence in relation to the freezing of the Bank Accounts, including the Police Report. The Banks did not accede to the Defendants' request.
[10] Only after service of the Amended Writ and Statement of Claim and through a court file search, the Defendants:- (a) discovered that P had previously filed an ex-parte application for an interlocutory injunction to freeze the Joint Accounts ("Injunction Application"); and (b) obtained sight of the Police Report, which was exhibited in P's affidavit affirmed on 30 July 2020 and filed in support of the Injunction Application. The Defendants say that the Police Report contains false accusations and was used by P to influence the Banks to wrongly freeze the Joint Accounts.
[11] The Injunction Application was dismissed by me during an ex parte hearing on 4 August 2020. The Defendants complain that P had failed to inform the Banks of this court decision. Instead, P amended para 21(a) of the Statement of Claim to delete the relief sought for mandatory injunction against the Defendants to return the money from the Withdrawal into the relevant UOB Bank Joint Account.
[12] The Defendants fur
