Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2064
HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
FR DEVELOPMENT ASIA SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ZELCOS LABORATORY SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA23NCVC-7-05-2022]
Plaintiffs failed to prove allegations of perjury, contempt, and abuse of process against Defendants, leading to dismissal of claims and costs awarded to Defendants.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 101, 102, and 103 - Plaintiffs allege Defendants committed perjury and contempt of court - Plaintiffs failed to prove claims on balance of probabilities - Court found no evidence of false statements or orchestrated incident - Plaintiffs' claims dismissed. (Paras 21, 22, 54, 86)
(B) Contempt of Court - Plaintiffs' claim for contempt dismissed due to failure to obtain required leave from the court. (Paras 28, 29)
(C) Perjury - Plaintiffs failed to establish basis for perjury claim; no evidence of false statements. (Paras 39, 40)
(D) Abuse of Process - Court found no evidence to support the tort of abuse of process. (Paras 42, 44) (E) Malicious Prosecution - Court held that malicious prosecution is primarily utilized in criminal proceedings, not applicable here. (Paras 50, 52)
Facts of the case:
The instant suit arises from allegations by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants regarding a staged incident to mislead the court in prior suits. The Defendants successfully obtained a vacant possession order, which the Plaintiffs resisted. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of their claims. (Paras 22, 86)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Defendants committed contempt, perjury, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. (Paras 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, and the necessary legal procedures were not followed. (Paras 22, 28, 39, 42)
Result: Plaintiffs' claims dismissed, and costs awarded to the Defendants.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There are altogether three suits between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Namely:
(a) Penang High Court Suit No PA-22-NCVC-58-03/2020 ("vacant possession suit 58");
(b) Penang High Court Suit No PA-24-NCVC-628-09/2020 ("injunction suit 628"); and
(c) Penang High Court Suit No PA-23 NCVC-7-05/2022 ("instant suit").
[2] The vacant possession suit 58 and the injunction suit 628 are before another Penang High Court . The instant suit is before me.
[3] In the instant suit, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants had staged a false incident to mislead the Court into granting an ex-parte injunction order for the unlawful purpose of seizing the Plaintiffs' assets. The Plaintiffs filed the instant suit for a determination that the Defendants had committed perjury and contempt of Court , in staging the false incident.
[4] The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants had committed the tort of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. By intentionally instituting the injunction suit 628 for the sole purpose of forcibly evicting the Plaintiffs and seizing their assets.
[5] After a full trial, I dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.
Background Facts
[6] On 7 October 2019, the 1st Defendant ("D1") purchased the subject property ("property") by way of an auction sale pursuant to a foreclosure proceeding by a bank. At all material time, D1 is the rightful owner of the property.
[7] D1 issued notices dated 18 December 2019 to the Plaintiffs to deliver vacant possession of the property by 31 December 2019. The Plaintiffs had rented the property from its previous owner. At that material time, the Plaintiffs were still occupying the property.
[8] The Defendants say that the Plaintiffs failed to deliver vacant possession of the property to D1. As a result of such failure, D1 instituted the vacant possession suit 58 against the Plaintiffs. One of the reliefs prayed for by D1 is to claim for vacant possession of the property against the Plaintiffs. In turn, the Plaintiffs filed a counterclaim in the vacant possession suit 58.
[9] D1 filed an application for summary judgment in the vacant possession suit 58. D1 succeeded in the summary judgment application on 8 September 2020. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to deliver vacant possession of the property to D1, within seven days from receipt of the Court order ("vacant possession Court order"). The Court further ordered that the remaining issues be determined by trial.
[10] The fair copy of the vacant possession Court order was extracted and served on the Plaintiffs' counsel on 24 September 2020. The Defendants say there was a delay in doing so because the Plaintiffs intentionally delayed the process of sealing the vacant possession Court order, by amending it in a way which does not reflect what was pronounced by the Court .
[11] Through their solicitors, the Plaintiffs issued letters dated 9 September 2020 and 11 September 2020 addressed to the Court , asking the Court not to seal the vacant possession Court order and to fix a date for clarification. The Plaintiffs did so without sending the letters to the solicitors of D1 in the vacant possession suit 58, which was later objected by D1's solicitors.
[12] The Defendants say that, as a result of the delay in extracting the vacant possession Court order and the refusal of the Plaintiffs to deliver vacant possession of the property, D1 was worried about the condition of the property. Therefore D1, through the 2nd Defendant ("D2"), directed its agent to observe the status of the property. D2 is a Director of D1. The Defendants aver that they spotted unusual activities in the vicinity of the property.
[13] The Defendants say they were worried that the property would be destroyed. Hence, D1 filed the injunction suit 628 on 15 September 2020 to obtain an order for injunction. The Defendants aver that the purpose of filing the injunction suit 628 is to preserve
