Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3607
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
APPSMITHS SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
JASON KOK CHIN HWA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-788-12/2018]
The Court has the inherent authority to strike out claims for non-compliance with procedural rules, ensuring just and efficient legal processes.
Headnote:(A) Rules of 2012 – Order 15 r 1, Order 15 r 4, Order 34 r 1, Order 92 r 4 – Striking out of claim – Plaintiff's claim struck out due to non-compliance with Court's directions and misjoinder of causes of action – Multiple causes of action alleged against Defendants without proper joinder. (Paras 5, 6, 10, 15, 16)
(B) Court's inherent powers – The Court must ensure just, expeditious, and economical trials – Directions issued by the Court must be complied with by parties involved. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff's claim consisted of various allegations against the Defendants, including breach of fiduciary duties and defamation. The Court found the Statement of Claim disorganized and contrary to rules of pleading. The Plaintiff refused to comply with court-directed amendments.
Findings of Court: The Court held that the non-compliance with its directives constituted an abuse of process, justifying the striking out of the Statement of Claim with costs.
Issues: The main issues involve the procedural compliance with the Rules regarding the plea structure and the joinder of causes of action against multiple Defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that the Rules necessitate clarity and relevance in pleadings and that misjoinder can disadvantage fair trial proceedings.
Result: Plaintiff's claim struck out.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Court in this case using its inherent jurisdiction as well as applying the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules") struck out the Plaintiff's claim with a cost of RM3,000 for non-compliance with Court's direction.
Brief Facts
[2] After sieving through the various paragraphs of the Statement of Claim the Court detected that there were more than one cause of action against the Defendants.
[3] The causes of actions were basically aimed at the 1st Defendant and included a claim for breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of funds and defamation and to top it all there was allegation of conspiracy against all the Defendants.
The Issue
[4] In the light of such a muddled up Statement of Claim the issue facing the Court was how best to conduct the trial. In other words the Court's power in giving direction as to how a trial should be conducted in a just, expeditious and economical manner.
The Court's Power
[5] In determining the Court's power to conduct a Trial the Court resorted to be guided by the Rules. From the start it was clear that the drafting of the Statement of Claim did not follow the Rules especially those laid under O 18 r 7 amongst others, of only pleading relevant and material facts in summarized and concise manner.
[6] Apart from not pleading concise and relevant statement of facts, the Statement of Claim revealed more than one cause of action contrary of what is provided for under the Rules specifically O 15 r 1. Order 15 r 1 states as follows:
1. Joinder of causes of action (O 15 r 1)
(1) Subject to r 5(1), a plaintiff may in one action claim relief against the same defendant in respect of more than one cause of action:
(a) if the plaintiff claims, and the defendant is alleged to be liable, in the same capacity in respect of all causes of action;
(b) if the plaintiff claims or the defendant is alleged to be liable in the capacity of executor or administrator of an estate in respect of one or more of the causes of action and in his personal capacity but with reference to the same estate in respect of all the others; or
(c) with the leave of the Court.
[7] Going by the above provision, in the Court's view none of the condition of the above provision applies in this case. It is clear that the claim against all the Defendants are in different capacities. The claim against the 1st Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty is based on his capacity as the Managing Director of the Plaintiff until he resigned and the other claim against the 1st Defendant claim for defamation has no direct connection with his position when he was in the Plaintiff company whereas the claim against the other Defendants of conspiracy is based on their relationship with the 1st Defendant.
[8] Order 15(1)(b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable in this case as the claim does not relate to the Defendants being administrator or executors of any estate, The Plaintiff also did not apply for leave of the Court when joining the cause of actions. In short this provision of the Rule does not anyway help the Plaintiff's pleading.
[9] On this non-compliance itself the Court has powers to dismiss the Statement of Claim of being an abuse of the process of Court.
[10] Nevertheless the Court further looked at the Rules on the legality of the joinder of the Defendants which is provided under O 15 r 4 which states as follows:
4. Joinder of parties (O 15 r 4)
(1) Subject to r 5(1), two or more persons may be joined together in one action as plaintiffs or as defendants with the leave of the Court or where:
(a) if separate actions were brought by or against each of them, as the case may be, some common question of law or fact would arise in all the actions; and
(b) all rights to relief claimed in the action (whether they are joint, several or alternative) are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.
[11] Again in the Court's view the above conditions in the above provision does not apply in this case. Certainly there was n
