Claims based on limitation periods must be filed within statutory timelines, and claims deemed frivolous or vexatious can be struck out by the court.

[1] The following is the grounds of judgment of this Court in relation to the:

(i) Encl 9: the 1st Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim;

(ii) Encl 12: the 2nd Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim; and

(iii) Encl 14: the 3rd Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim.

[2] Upon conclusion of the hearing, I had on 8 May 2018, granted order in terms for Encls 9, 12 and 14 with cost of RM5,000.00 each payable by the Plaintiffs to each of the Defendant subject to allocator The Plaintiffs have since filed the notice of appeal against the above order.

Background Of The Plaintiff's Suit

[3] The history of this suit has been set out at length in the submission of both parties. I have adopted a large part of those factual matrix in the course of my decision.

3.1 Via a Sale & Purchase Agreement dated 27 November 2010 ("the SPA"), the Plaintiffs purchased a Lot Unit Office at a development known as "Empire City" from the 1st Defendant;

3.2 The development of Empire City was approved by the relevant government authorities on 17 March 2011;

3.3 Prior to the signing of the SPA, the Plaintiff had on 29 October 2010 duly executed and accepted an offer known as "the Early Bird Offer" from the 1st Defendant.

3.4 The 2nd Defendant were the solicitors appointed by the 1st Defendant to prepare the necessary documents for the purchase including the SPA, whilst the 3rd Defendant was the 1st Defendant's architect for the development.

3.5 At the time where the sale and purchase transaction was on going, the Plaintiffs had executed a Certificate of Election which stipulates as follows:

(a) the 2nd Defendants is representing the Vendor (the 1st Defendant);

(b) the Plaintiffs have been shown a copy of the SPA and the contents of the SPA been explained to the Plaintiffs;

(c) the Plaintiffs have been advised and asked whether they intend to appoint their own solicitors at their own cost and confirm that they do not wish to engage their own solicitors to scrutinize the documentation including the SPA; and

(d) the Plaintiffs request that the 2nd Defendant to assist the Plaintiffs to attend to the formalities of execution, adjudication, stamping and presentation of the Memorandum of Transfer of the Property.

Summary Of The Plaintiff's Claim

[4] The Plaintiffs' cause of action against the 1st Defendant is based on the tort of conspiracy whereby the Plaintiff alleges that 1st and 2nd Defendant had conspired to include unfair terms inside the SPA. According to the Plaintiffs, they subsequently discovered that the SPA had included unfair terms to them. In this regard, the Plaintiffs are claiming that the said unit is a housing accommodation and not a commercial unit. Hence, the provisions of the Housing Development Act should apply to the SPA.

[5] The Plaintiffs' cause of action against the 2nd Defendant is for breach of contract, negligence, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.

[6] The Plaintiffs' cause of action against the 3rd Defendant is for conspiracy based on the term in the SPA which allows the 3rd Defendant to issue the certificate of completion. The Plaintiff alleges that the 3rd Defendant had issued the certificate of completion for the unit purchased by the Plaintiffs when the said unit was purportedly not completed.

[7] Premised on the above causes of action, the Plaintiffs in their Writ and Statement of Claim sought for the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the said Unit is a 'housing accommodation' as defined in the under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 ("HDA");

(b) A de