Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MUHAMMAD RIFQI AMZAR FAIZO – Appellant
Versus
DR SIVAKUMAR SIVALINGAM & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. withdrawal of action by minor (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. consent order for withdrawal (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's concerns about minor's rights (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. jurisdiction to withdraw action (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's duty to scrutinize consent orders (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. justice for minors in legal actions (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. right to remedy for minors (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. welfare principle in court (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. disability protections in law (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. access to justice for minors (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. impecuniosity does not bar claims (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. abuse of process considerations (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 13. overarching duty to do justice (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 14. judicial oversight in civil actions (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 15. alteration of consent order (Para 43) |
Introduction
[1] This court was informed by the solicitors for the parties to this action that they have agreed for the action to be withdrawn and struck out without any order for costs and without liberty to file afresh. They sought for a Consent Order to this effect to be recorded. Upon being apprised by learned counsel for the plaintiff who is a minor suing the two
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
