A statement of claim must demonstrate a reasonable cause of action and must not be scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The Striking Out Applications

[1] By encl 20 and encl 23, the Defendants had applied to strike out the Plaintiffs claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 (RoC). Both applications were allowed with costs of RM8,000.00 subject to payment of the allocator fee on each of the Defendants.

[2] The Plaintiff has appealed, and these are the reasons for striking out their Statement of Claim (SoC).

The Plaintiff's Suit

[3] The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants pursuant to an open tender invitation issued by the Ministry of Finance (MoF) around March 2020 for 'Pembekalan Fingerprint Consumable Items untuk Polis DiRaja Malaysia'. The period to place the tender was from 17 March 2020 to 10 June 2020.

[4] The Plaintiff contended that it had complied with the terms, conditions and specification of the said tender but the First Defendant had not. The Plaintiff averred that the First Defendant had colluded and/or conspired with the Second and Third Defendants not to award the tender to the lowest bidder which was the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also alleged the collusion and conspiracy resulted in the tender awarded to the First Defendant whereby the terms of the tender specifications were changed.

[5] Against the Second Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed that he had misused and abused his powers as the then Deputy Director of D10 Forensic in the Royal Malaysian Police Force (PDRM) and had instructed the evaluating board members to produce a report favourable to the First Defendant. It was alleged that the Second Defendant had colluded and/or conspired with the other defendants and the Ministry of Home Affairs' tender board members not to award the tender to the Plaintiff which had the lowest price and had complied with all the specifications including the ability to supply training.

[6] The Plaintiff had also claimed that the Third Defendant had misused and abused his powers as the then Police Secretary of the Royal Malaysian Police Force when he colluded and/or conspired with the other Defendants and members of the tender board by writing to YB Lim Lip Eng. The said letter dated 15 February 2021 stated that the tender was properly awarded which the Plaintiff claimed was a misleading statement.

[7] The relief the Plaintiff is seeking is a declaration that the Defendants (whether jointly and/or severally had conspired to injure the Plaintiff by unlawful means. The remedy in damages (general, exemplary and punitive) is prayed for.

The Applicable Laws To Strike Out The Plaintiff's Claim

[8] The Defendants relied on O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the RoC. Order 18 r 19 is reproduced as follows:

(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that:

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

[9] This Court will firstly deal with O 18 r 19(1)(a) RoC which has been cited by all the Defendants.

[10] After examining the Plaintiffs Amended Statement of Claim (SoC) thoroughly, this Court cannot find any of the elements in regard to the alleged conspiracy or deceit by all the Defendants with the intention to injure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff must plead particulars of the existence of an agreement between all the Defendants to conspire against and/or injure the Plaintiff to