Striking out pleadings requires clear demonstration of no reasonable cause of action or claims being vexatious, particularly under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Courts 2012.

JUDGMENT

Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud JC:

(Enclosure 17, 18, 19 & 20)

Introduction

[1] These are 4 Notices of Application, pursuant to O 18 r 19 Rules of Courts 2012, by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons (Encl 1) and Statement of Claim (Encl 2).

[2] The Notices of Applications pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) Rules of Courts 2012 are as follows

i. Enclosure 17 as against the 15th, 42th, 46th Plaintiffs (3 Plaintiffs)

ii. Enclosure 18 as against the 1st, 18th, 31st, 37th Plaintiffs (4 Plaintiffs)

iii. Enclosure 19 as against the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 29th, 30th, 31th, 38th, 39th, 43rd, 45th, 47th Plaintiffs (a total of 22 Plaintiffs) and there is an overlapping of the 17th, 18th, 31st Plaintiff with encl 18

iv. Enclosure 20 as against the 32nd, 33rd, 35th, 35th, 40th, 41st, 49th Plaintiffs (a total of 7 Plaintiffs)

[3] This leaves 18 Plaintiffs out of these applications namely, 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 9th, 12th,13th,15th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 27th, 28th, 34th, 44th, 46th, and 48th Plaintiff.

The Law In Respect Of Striking Out Pursuant Order 18 Rule 19 Rules Of 2012

[4] The Rules of Court provides for Striking Out in O 18 r 19 and we reproduced the same for ease of reference.

19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O 18 r 19)

(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, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.

(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a).

(3) This rule shall, as far as applicable, apply to an originating summons as if it were a pleading.

[5] In explaining it, the Federal Court in Tan Wei Hong (A Minor Suing Through Guardian Ad Litem And Next Friend Chuang Yin E) & Ors v. Malaysia Airlines Bhd And Other Appeals, 2018 MarsdenLR 2584 ; [2018] AMR 529, referred to the case of Bandar Builders Sdn Bhd v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd; [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993] 2 AMR 1969 which said the following:

"The tests for striking out application under O 18 r 19 of the ROC, as adopted by the Supreme Court in Bandar Builders are, inter alia, as follows:

(a) it is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under the rule;

(b) this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it obviously unsustainable;

(c) it cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence;

(d) if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for argument under O 33 r 3 of the ROC; and

(e) the Court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the defences raised are not arguable.

[6] The Court of Appeal, in Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v. Che Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors, 2025 MarsdenLR 6962 , had adopted the well-settled principle of striking out in the following passage:

"A striking out order should not be made summarily by the Court if there is issue of law that requires lengthy argument and mature consideration. It should also not be made if there is issue of fact that is capable of resolution only after taking viva voce evidence during trial (see: Lai Yoke Ngan & Anor v. Chin Teck Kwee & Anor, [1997] 2 MLJ 565 (FC))."

[7] In Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor, [2016] 3 ML