The court ruled that irrelevant wording in legal proceedings can be struck out if it serves no purpose and is an abuse of the court's process, potentially damaging reputations.

JUDGEMENT

Ahmad Bache J:

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff has filed a suit against the Defendants for taxation of legal fees.

[2] The Plaintiff had inserted in the intitulement the wordings "That is in dissolution dispute". Vide Enclosure (5), the Defendants are moving this Court to expunge the said wordings on the ground that they are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the Court's process, amongst others.

[3] After hearing submissions from parties, this Court had allowed this application to expunge/struck off those wordings.

[4] Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[5] Herewith are the grounds for the decision.

B. Background Facts

[6] The Plaintiff had filed an action against the Defendants for taxation of legal fees. In the intitulement, the Plaintiff had inserted the words "That is in a dissolution dispute". This has offended the Defendants who believed that the Plaintiff's action has nothing to do with any purported dissolution dispute. The Defendants also felt that those wording were irrelevant and an abuse of process. The Defendants stood firm that inter alia the firm still remains in business and operational at all times. The Defendants are all professional lawyers and are in active practice. Hence the Defendants prayed for the wordings to be struck off under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d). They prayed for an order in term and that cost to be paid by the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.

[7] The Plaintiff took a different position. The Plaintiff considered that there was no malice or bad intention to use those wordings as Notices of Dissolution to dissolve the Partnership under the name and style of Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gladhill were already issued by some of the former partners of the same when they were partners of the firm.

[8] Further the Plaintiff was made aware through social media platform that the Dissolution Notices had been accepted by some of the former partners of the firm and some had rejected which include some of the Defendants herein. This, according to the Plaintiff is an incontrovertible fact. As the dispute is not resolved, till to date, hence it is subject to dispute resolution proceedings. Hence it is not wrong for the Plaintiff to describe the Defendants in the intitulement as such. Hence as there was no malice etc, the Defendants' application should be struck off, as there was no merit in the application.

C. The Law On Striking Out

[9] Order 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of 2012 regarding striking out, provides the following:

"Order 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d):

(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that-

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair Trial of the action; or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.

(2) No evidence shall be admissible under sub paragraph (1) (a)."

[10] The striking-out procedure is summary in nature. It should only be adopted when it is conspicuously clear that the claim on the face of it is obviously unsustainable, ie the test is whether on the face of the Statement of Claim alone (i.e. without looking at the affidavit evidence) whether the Court is prepared to conclude that the cause of action is obviously unsustainable - (see New Straits Times (M) Bhd v. Kumpulan Verta Niaga Sdn Bhd & Anor, 1985 MarsdenLR 824 ; Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Others v. UMBC; [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993] 2 AMR 1969; Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor; [2016] 3 MLJ 1; [2016] 3 CLJ 1; [2016] 2 AMR 795).

[11] In the Federal Court's case of Serac Asia Sdn Bhd v. Sepakat Insurance Brokers