A plaintiff must demonstrate locus standi to pursue claims, failing which the claims may be struck out.

Introduction

[1] After having provided legal professional services to the 1st Defendant-Joint Management Body of a strata development, the Plaintiff sued the 1st Defendant-Joint Management Body and all its seven (7) Officer Bearers for recovery of the legal professional fees said to be due and owing to the Plaintiff.

[2] In the Statement of Claim the Plaintiff purported to claim for declaratory reliefs that the 2nd to 8th Defendants as the Office Bearers of the 1st Defendant/Joint Management Body have alleged breached their fiduciary duties to the 1st Defendant/Joint Management Body and have allegedly not acted bona fide for the interest of the 1st Defendant/Joint Management Body.

[3] The Plaintiff, being advocate and solicitor, is not a purchaser or occupier of any of the parcels of common properties in the strata development managed by the 1st Defendant/Joint Management Body.

[4] In the Defendants' Defence, there is nothing from the 1st Defendant/Joint Management Body to allege that any of the Officer Bearers has acted outside the scope of authority or responsibility.

[5] At the application of the 2nd to 8th Defendants, this Court on 20 March 2023 struck out the Plaintiff's claims against the 2nd to 8th Defendants on the ground that the Plaintiff has no locus standi to sue the 2nd to 8th Defendants for any alleged breach of fiduciary duties to the 1st Defendant/Joint Management Body or for not acting bona fide for the interest of the 1st Defend ant/ Joint Management Body.

[6] Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Law On Striking Out

[7] O 18 r 19 striking out of a claimant's suit is only to be resorted to in clear and obvious case where the plaintiff's action is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process. Where the claimant's action is obviously unsustainable or has no chance of success, the claimant's action is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process and can be summarily struck out. As long as the claimant has at least one (1) triable issue that is relevant to his pleaded cause of action, the Court will not summarily strike out his claim under O 18 r 19.

[8] Although the Court is generally reluctant to summarily strike out an action on grounds relating to the substantive merits of the case, the Court will in an appropriate case summarily strike out an action which is clearly time-barred, re judicata, premature or where the plaintiff lacks the locus standi or legal capacity to sue. See, for example, the cases of Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang , (Supreme Court), Metrod (M) Bhd v. MGS Transport Sdn Bhd; (High Court), etc where the courts struck out the plaintiffs' suits for lack of locus standi.

[9] In the words of Salleh Abbas LP in Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang (supra), "Every legal system has a built-in mechanism to protect its judicial process from abuse by busy-bodies, cranks and other mischief-makers by insisting that a plaintiff should have a special interest in the proceedings which he institutes. This special interest is a nexus between him and the party against whom he brings his complaints to Court and is known as locus standi."

Analysis Of The Pleadings

[10] In essence, the Plaintiff's claims in the present case are for recovery of fees and disbursements for legal professional services rendered to the 1st Defendant/JMB. The 2nd to 8th Defendants were Officer Bearers of the 1st Defendant/JMB.

[11] The Plaintiff is a firm of advocates and solicitors, and is not a parcel owner nor an occupier in the development which is managed and maintained by the 1st Defendant/JMB. There is no claim by the Plaintiff for any proprietary right to any parcel or to occupy any common prope