Summary dismissal of claims under Order 18 r 19 requires clear evidence of no reasonable cause; substantial factual disputes necessitate a full trial.

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 28 is Notice of Application filed by 3rd and 4th Defendant to strike out Plaintiff's write and Statement of Claim and Plaintiff's Reply filed herein against them pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012.

[2] Although 3rd and 4th Defendants did not specify under which sub-paragraphs of r 19 (1) of O 18 that they are relying on, from the 2 grounds cited in the Notice of Application itself namely "(1) that the Plaintiff's claim against the 3rd and 4th Defendants discloses no reasonable cause of action; and (2) that the Plaintiff's claim against the 3rd and 4th Defendants is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court", it can be assumed that the 3rd and 4th Defendants are relying on r 19 (1) (a), (b) and (d) to O 18 Rules of 2012 as the basis of this Enclosure 28. Rightfully and fundamentally, an applicant ought to have cited the proper and the specific rules in the Rules of 2012 that he seeks to base his case on so as to give clear and sufficient notice to the respondent as to the correct provision to enable the latter to prepare his case. A failure to do so may render such an application defective particularly so when the respondent is prejudice that he may not know for certain under which actual provision that the applicant is relying on principally. However, since the words used in the 2 stated grounds in Enclosure 28 correspond with the words used in O 18 r 19 (1) (a), (b) and (d) Rules of 2012 and there is no issue of prejudice being raised by the Plaintiff/Respondent, this Court is prepared to assume that Enclosure 28 is made premised on r 19 (1) (a), (b) and (d) thereof.

Findings Of Court

[3] The law on striking out under any of the 4 limbs of r 19 (1) of O 18 Rules of 2012 is well settled that it is only in plain and obvious cases or that a claim or defence is on the face of it obviously unsustainable that such summary process is resorted to; 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 defence; seeBandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd, .

[4] Plaintiff's claim against all the Defendants are inter alia, for a declaration that the Plaintiff was induced and misrepresented to sign and execute the sale and purchase agreement dated 18 January 2013 (the said "SPA") for the sale of lands namely 1 CL (Country Lease) title and 8 NL (Native Titles) situated in Pulau Mountukod, Kinarut, District of Papar, Sabah ("the said lands") between the Plaintiff as vendor and the 1st Defendant as purchaser for the purchase price of RM18,000,000.00; that there was no consensus between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant in respect of the said SPA and hence there was no valid and binding agreement; that the said SPA be thereby rescinded; special and general damages, interest and costs.

[5] The 3rd Defendant is an advocate and solicitor practising in the firm Messrs Jenny Lim Lee & Wong, the 4th Defendant.

[6] Plaintiff's claim against the 3rd and 4th Defendant is inter alia for a declaration that the 3rd and 4th Defendant were not instructed to act for the Plaintiff and did not or are not acting for the Plaintiff in the said SPA between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.

[7] Plaintiff averred that she was urged, induced, misrepresented, under duress and under undue influence to sign the said SPA and hence, there was no free consent. It was contended for the Plaintiff inter alia that the various clauses in the said SPA were either in