Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ALIRAN CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (ENCL 33) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court allows the defendant's application to strike out the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim lacks legal basis regarding the right of way. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 13) |
| 3. arguments against the necessity of gazetting are rejected. (Para 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. claim classified as frivolous and vexatious due to lack of prospects. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
(Enclosure 33)
A. Introduction
[1] This is the full grounds of my judgment in allowing the Defendant's application in Enc. 33 to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim, both dated 28 October 2020.
[2] The Writ and Statement of Claim were struck out under O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the Rules of 2012 on the grounds that the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is frivolous or vexatious.
[3] After taking into account the pleadings, the parties' respective affidavits and the submissions of counsels, I found that the Plaintiff's case against the Defendant is plainly and obviously unsustainable. This is because (i) the Plaintiff does not have any legal right of way over the ARR (as defined below), and (ii) the ARR is an unalienated State Land which has not been gazetted as a road reserve - contrary to t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
