The counterclaims of the defendants were deemed frivolous and unsustainable, affirming the principle of res judicata and the finality of previous judgments.

Headnote:(A) Rules of the High Court 1980 - Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b)(c)(d) - Sale and Purchase Agreement - Refund of earnest deposit - The plaintiff's claim for a refund of the earnest deposit was upheld as the 1st defendant failed to remove a charge on the land and refund the sum as mandated in the SPA. (Paras 6, 14, 28).

(B) Res Judicata - The defendants' attempts to re-litigate previously settled issues were barred by the principle of res judicata, confirming that finalized judgments must be respected. (Paras 18, 24).

(C) Equitable Fraud - The defendants’ claims of equitable fraud were dismissed as they failed to substantiate their allegations of misrepresentation or unconscionable conduct. (Paras 40, 42).

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff paid an earnest deposit under an MOU intending to purchase land but faced challenges in recovering that deposit after the vendor failed to complete their obligations under the agreement following an unfavorable judgment.

Findings of Court:
The court found the defendants' counterclaim to be frivolous, unsustainable, and abusive, resulting in an order to strike it out and awarding costs to the plaintiff.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the counterclaims made by the defendants, including allegations of breach and the jurisdiction of previous judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the finality of judicial decisions and the prohibition against re-litigating settled matters. It ruled that the defendants' arguments lacked merit and constituted an abuse of judicial process.

Result: Plaintiff's application to strike out the defendants' counterclaim allowed.

GAN SENG BIANG vs PRIYAMAS EXPORT CORPORATION SDN BHD & ANOR - 2010 MarsdenLR 3542