The court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of its process if proper procedures for third party notice under the Rules of Court are not followed.

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 49 is a Notice of Application made under O 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d), O 16 and O 92 r 4 Rules of , 2012, by Ma Boon Lan who was named as the 3rd Party by the 2nd defendant) for an Order that the 2nd defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated the 26th day of June 2015 (encl 41) be set aside, struck out and/or dismissed forthwith with cost.

[2] The grounds of this application are, inter alia, as follows:

(i) The 2nd defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 26 June 2015 (encl 41) is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and/or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court;

(ii) The 2nd defendant had totally failed to comply with all the mandatory prerequisites laid down under O 16 of the Rules of 2012 before including Ma Boon Lan as the third party in the 2nd defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 26 June 2015 (encl 41).

(iii) There is no decision in the Order given by the Court on 7 May 2015 [encl 37] [ie for the conversion of the Originating Summons to a Writ Action] that allow/permit the 2nd defendant to include Ma Boon Lan as the third party in the 2nd defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 26 June 2015 (encl 41).

(vi) that the above grounds and further grounds of this application are stated and supported by the affidavit of Ma Boon Lan affirmed on 27 August 2015 and filed together herein.

Background

[3] To avoid any confusion in this Grounds of Decision, the capacity and identities of the parties are as follows:

Ma Suan Tong: The plaintiff

UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd: The 1st defendant

Tai Choi Yu: The 2nd defendant

Ma Boon Lan: included as a third party by the 2nd defendant in the 2nd defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 26 June 2015 (encl 41).

[4] Initially, the plaintiff filed the present Originating Summons (encl 1) on 25 August 2014 against the 1st and 2nd defendants claiming for, inter alia, an Order for the removal of the Caveat Instrument No: L 432/2006 lodged over all that parcel of vacant land thereon and appurtenances thereof situate at Bukit Birop, Baram, containing an area of 3.711 hectares, more or less, and described as Lot 151 Teraja Land District (hereinafter referred to as "the said Property").

[5] Pending the disposal of this said Originating Summons (encl 1), the 1st defendant through their new appointed advocates ie Messrs Zicolaw & Co Advocates contacted the plaintiff to negotiate for the amicable settlement of the said Originating Summons (encl 1).

[6] The 2nd defendant on the other hand had filed the Notice of Application [s 13 Bankruptcy Act 1967; O 28 r 8; O 92 r 4, Rules of 2012 and inherent Jurisdiction dated 8 December 2014 (encl 12) [hereinafter referred to as "the said NOA encl 12"]. A copy of the said NOA (encl 12) is exhibited as "MA-4" to Ma Boon Lan's Affidavit (encl 50).

[7] The plaintiff and the 1st defendant then entered into the Consent Order on 7 January 2015 (encl 25) whereby it was agreed, inter alia, that the said caveat lodged against the said Property be removed forthwith. A copy of the said Consent Order is exhibited as "MA-5" to Ma Boon Lan's Affidavit (encl 50).

[8] On 7 May 2015, the Court granted an order in terms of the said NOA (encl 12) whereby the Originating Summons (encl 1) was converted to a writ action. A copy of the said Order given on 7 May 2015 (encl 37) is exhibited as "MA- 6" to Ma Boon