Only material facts, as defined under Order 18 Rule 7, may be included in pleadings; irrelevant and vexatious claims can be struck out.

JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant applied to strike out paras 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 16 in the Statement of Claim on under O 18 Rule of Rules of 2012 ("the Rules") for being frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial and an abuse of the process of Court. This application of the Defendant was filed on 9 October 2020 (encl 70) and refers to the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff on 30 July 2018.

[2] Subsequently the Plaintiff amended the Statement of Claim twice ie on 6 November 2020 and 19 March 2021. However the paragraphs seeking to be struck out were not affected and they remained as filed initially.

The Plaintiffs claim

[3] The main grievance of the Plaintiff against the Defendant is being short changed in the preparation and supply of Malaysian Passports.

[4] The Plaintiff had supplied 1.5 million passports to the Defendants and were paid RM13 per passport although the agreed rate was RM16.65 leaving a short fall of RM24, 975,000 for which the Plaintiff has filed this claim.

[5] The cause of action of the Plaintiff is premised on a breach of contract and in the alternative on quantum merit.

The Issue

[6] The only issue to be determined in the application to strike out is whether the facts pleaded are relevant or material for the purposes of pleading the cause of action as stated above in the light of O 18 r 7 of the Rules.

Order 18 Rule 7 of the Rules

[7] For ease of reference the O 18 r 7 is reproduced and is worded 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.

[8] From the above provision it is clear that only material facts and that too as brief as the nature of the case admits can be pleaded. The phrase "shall contain and contain only" reflects the mandatory nature of the provision.

The Paragraphs Sought To Be Struck Out

[9] Without going into the details it is apparent the impugned paragraphs from paras 4 to 9 apart from highlighting the events leading to the Plaintiff being appointed to print the passports, also states facts which in the Court's view are wholly immaterial as well as an attempt to deride the ability of the Defendant to print the passports and questions the tender process awarding the contract to the Defendant in the first place. This is clearly unnecessary and an abuse of process of Court.

[10] Paragraph 16 on the other hand questions the Defendants intention to outsource the printing the passports to a foreign country thereby compromising the security of the Malaysian passports. This is again an immaterial fact.

[11] Taking all the facts in the above paragraphs, it shows an attempt by the Plaintiff to indirectly lay aspersion against the Government for awarding the printing of the passport to the Defendant. The Government of Malaysia is not a party to this suit and therefore this facts are wholly irrelevant and are vexatious and abuse of the process of Court.

[12] In conclusion the Court agrees with the Defendant that the paragraphs sought to be struck out are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of Court.

Conclusion

[13] In the upshot the Court allowed the Defendant's application to strike out the impugned paragraphs in the Statement of Claim.