TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 MarsdenLR 325

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN KOK PIN – Appellant
Versus
LOH CHUN HOO & ORS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Aaron Pang ,Respondent Advocate: Siti Fairuz Mohd Ali

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the test for striking out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) ROC 2012 as applied to a claim disclosing no reasonable cause of action? Question 2? What constitutes the essential elements of conspiracy, and are bare or inadequately pleaded allegations sufficient to sustain a claim? Question 3? Can a civil court entertain extortion or slander claims when extortion is a criminal offense and precise pleading requirements for defamation are not met?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the test for striking out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) ROC 2012 as applied to a claim disclosing no reasonable cause of action?

Question 2?

What constitutes the essential elements of conspiracy, and are bare or inadequately pleaded allegations sufficient to sustain a claim?

Question 3?

Can a civil court entertain extortion or slander claims when extortion is a criminal offense and precise pleading requirements for defamation are not met?

JUDGMENT

Johan Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee JC:

(Enclosure 20 - 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th And 12th Defendant Striking Out Application, Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a))

Introduction

[1] This is a case where the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th Defendants ('these Defendants') filed an application ("the Application") pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012") praying for an order to strike out the Plaintiff's writ and statement of claim dated 22 February 2021 and 19 March 2021 respectively ("the Suit").

Facts Of The Case

[2] These Defendants subscribed and/or invested monies in the Click Subscription Plan. Click Subscription Plan was offered by the Plaintiff's company known as Click Internet Traffic Sdn Bhd ("Click") through an online application where certain returns on investment were offered to investors.

[3] After a period of time, the Plaintiff alleged that the Click application had been hacked. Based on that reason, the Plaintiff stopped paying subscribers their returns on investments. These Defendants demanded for the refund of their capital investments and for his downlines. The Plaintiff had refused and/or failed to do so. These Defendants and the other defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document