The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of claims already determined, emphasizing the importance of settled judgements in preventing abuse of the court’s process.

[1] The underlying action in the instant proceeding is a writ action filed by the plaintiffs, among others, primarily for various declarations on previous transactions involving the defendants, the return of issue documents of titles and the transfer forms on certain properties to the first plaintiff as well as damages given the allegations against the defendants' committing fraud on the Court, conspiracy and dishonest assistance.

[2] The defendants in response instituted the instant six separate striking out applications against the writ and the statement of claim of the plaintiffs.

[3] These striking out applications were heard together and at the conclusion of the hearing, I allowed all six applications, highlighted the principal reasons for my decision, and struck out the claim of the plaintiffs. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.

Key Background Facts

The Parties

[4] The first plaintiff is a company in liquidation. The second and third plaintiffs were the appointed joint and several liquidators for the first plaintiff company. The sixth and seventh defendants were former director and company secretary of the first plaintiff, respectively.

[5] The first and second defendants are directors of the third defendant company which was involved in the business of money lending services.

[6] The fourth defendant company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first plaintiff. Pursuant to a creditors' voluntary winding up, the fourth defendant had appointed the second and third plaintiffs as its provisional liquidators on 14 January 2011.

[7] The fifth defendant was a former director and company secretary of the fourth defendant company. The eighth and ninth defendants were also former directors of the fourth defendant.

[8] The tenth to the thirteenth defendants are private companies which had entered into transactions which will be stated shortly. The fourteenth defendant is the Companies Commission of Malaysia.

The Relevant Transactions

[9] The first plaintiff was a housing developer pre-its liquidation. It secured in 1990 the development of a project previously abandoned in Taman Kepong in Kuala Lumpur. With a total of 122 separate titled lots and two four-storey apartment blocks, this project constituted the main property of the first plaintiff.

[10] After the completion of the project, the first plaintiff then planned to launch a second phase of the development on certain remaining vacant lots of the project, four additional high rise apartment blocks to house a total of 230 units ("the Said Properties").

[11] In August 1996, the fourth defendant was incorporated and in the same month, despite what the first plaintiff now pleaded to have been some disagreement or absence of knowledge amongst its directors and shareholders, the Said Properties were caused to be transferred from the first plaintiff to the fourth defendant. The Said Properties were registered in the name of the fourth defendant in 1998.

[12] The first plaintiff was wound up on 19 January 2001. Through the second and third plaintiff as its joint liquidators who were appointed on 8 July 2006, the first plaintiff filed an originating summons vide No D6-24-457-2006 ("OS 457") against the fourth defendant for the return of the Said Properties pursuant to s 293 of the Companies Act 1965 , s 52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and s 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 for lack of consideration.

[13] Significantly, whilst proceedings in OS 457 were on-going, it was revealed, only in 2009, that the Said Properties had in fact been disposed of to the tenth defendant via a sale and purchase agreement dated 31 January 2007 for RM4 million. 36 of the Said Properties were transferred. The rest were restrained by the entry of private caveat.

[14] The OS 457 was the