The doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of issues decided in earlier court proceedings, emphasizing judicial economy and finality.

Introduction

[1] The 1st to the 3rd Defendants sought to strike out the Statement of Claim filed against them under O 18 r 19 (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 and/or under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012.

[2] The application is premised on the doctrine of Res Judicata in the wider sense. The said Defendants contend that this suit constitutes an abuse of process of Court as the subject matter of this case could have and should have been raised in the previous suit bearing number BA-A51-5-2018 that was filed in the Shah Alam Sessions Court.

[3] The Defendants contend that the same facts were relied on by the Plaintiff in the counterclaim filed by the Plaintiff in the Shah Alam proceedings. As such, the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to continue with the suit as to do so would constitute an abuse of process of this Court.

Applicable Law

Law On Striking Out

[4] The applicable law in an application to strike out a suit under any of the limbs laid down in O 18 r 19 is trite. I shall not repeat the applicable law, but I am aware that I should only exercise my powers to strike out the Writ and the Statement of Claim if it is shown that the claim is so obviously unsustainable that it should be dismissed.

[5] I refer to the decisions of the Courts in Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd, [1993] 3 MLJ 36, Sivarasa Rasiah v. Che Hamzah Che Ismail ; [2012] 1 MLJ 473; [2012] 1 CLJ 75 and Om Cahaya Mineral Asia Bhd v. Damansara Realty (Pahang) Sdn Bhd; [2019] 1 MLJ 683; [2018] 5 CLJ 587.

[6] I am also guided by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Sivarasa Rasiah v. Che Hamzah Che Ismail (supra) and Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd (supra), that if the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action and if it could be shown that there are "issues of law that need to be elaborated and argued in great detail and for mature consideration", then this Court should not strike out the suit. If there are relevant factual issues that require deliberation of the facts through witnesses, the power under O 18 r 19 should not be utilised.

[7] I am further reminded that I should consider the claim and the affidavit evidence in totality to determine whether there exists a reasonable cause of action that ought to be referred to at trial. For this purpose, I refer to the judgment of Mohd Azmi SCJ in Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail, [1992] 1 MLJ 400; [1992] 1 CLJ Rep 14, where his Lordship quoted the judgment of the Privy Council in Eng Mee Yong v. Letchumanan; [1979] 2 MLJ 212. Although, Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail (supra) is a case concerning an O 14 application, the same principle of law will be applicable in a case where a Court of law is required to analyze the contents of affidavits and determine whether there exists any triable issue or otherwise.

Res Judicata

[8] The application of the doctrine of Res Judicata was explained by the Supreme Court in Asia Commercial Finance Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd , [1995] 3 MLJ 189 where Peh Swee Chin FCJ is reported to have stated:

"When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are not permitted to litigate once more the res judicata, because the judgment becomes the truth between such parties, or in other words, the parties should accept it as the truth; res judicata pro veritate accipitur. The public policy of the law is that it is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation - interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium. It is only just that no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause of action - nemo debet bis vexari pro eade