Court emphasized that identifiers of tortfeasors must be properly cited; summary striking out inappropriate if issues of law and fact require trial.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the learned High Court judge dated 6 April 2011, allowing the respondents' application to summarily strike out the appellants' writ of summons and statement of claim pursuant to O. 18 r. 19(1) of the Rules of the High (RHC) 1980 with costs of RM3,000.

Brief Facts

[2] On 9 December 2007, the appellants were amongst a group of people (including members of the public, lawyers, human rights activists and journalists) who had participated in a peaceful walk along Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman to Central Market in Kuala Lumpur in conjunction with the International Human Rights Day which falls on 10 December every year.

[3] During the event, the participants, including the appellants were ordered to disperse by the Commanding Officer of the Police Personals at the scene ie, the 1st respondent, Che Hamzah Che Ismail. The appellants however disregarded the order to disperse. The 1st respondent then ordered and caused the arrests of the appellants. (There was however an issue that the arrests were made 10 minutes before the time allowed to disperse had ended). It was not disputed that all the appellants were physically arrested by different arresting officers upon the orders and instructions of the 1st respondent.

[4] The appellants were detained overnight and charged the following day at the Sessions Court Kuala Lumpur under ss. 143 and 145 of the Penal Code and alternatively, under ss. 27(5)(a) and 27(4) of the Police Act 1967 .

[5] At the close of the prosecution case, the Sessions Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case and acquitted and discharged all the appellants. The prosecution did not appeal against the said acquittal.

[6] On 8 December 2010, the appellants filed the present action against the respondents, inter alia for the following causes of action, namely:

(a) wrongful arrest and wrongful detention; and

(b) malicious prosecution.

[7] On 15 March 2011, the respondents filed an application vide summons in chambers to strike out the writ of summons and statement of claim pursuant to O. 18 r. 19(1)(a) and (b) of the RHC 1980. On 6 April 2011, the learned Judicial Commissioner (JC) allowed the respondents' application with costs. Hence the present appeal.