A vexatious litigant repeatedly pursues actions with no legal basis, subjecting the opposing party to undue inconvenience, justifying judicial declarations to limit further litigation.

Headnote:(A) Court of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) - Section 25(2) and Section 17 - Vexatious litigant - Application to declare defendant a vexatious litigant due to persistent and unreasonable legal actions - The court assessed the litigation history and found a pattern of vexatious behavior justifying the order - Existing cases cited underscore the nature of vexatious proceedings - Court held that the defendant exhibited characteristics of a vexatious litigant, leading to the declaration. (Paras 1, 6, 8, 10)

(B) Legal nature of vexatious litigants - A vexatious litigant repeatedly sues the same party based on the same cause of action, often lacking legal basis, imposing undue inconvenience on the opposing party. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to declare the defendant a vexatious litigant due to multiple unsuccessful legal attempts to overturn a summary judgment, which resulted in costs awarded against the defendant, indicating a pattern of abusive litigation. (Paras 1, 4, 10)

Findings of Court:
Court affirmed that the defendant's repetitive and unfounded challenges to a summary judgment constituted vexatious behavior, warranting judicial restraint against further proceedings. (Paras 6, 8)

Issues: Primary issues included determining whether the defendant's actions met the criteria for being labeled as vexatious as per the statutory framework. (Paras 1, 2, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the defendant’s continued legal challenges to previously resolved issues showed a clear pattern of vexatious conduct without reasonable grounds for these proceedings, justifying the declaration. (Paras 6, 8)

Result: The defendant was declared a vexatious litigant and subject to restrictions on initiating further legal action without leave of the court.

JUDGMENT

Prasad Sandosham Abraham J:

[1] Enclosure 1 was an application by the plaintiff to declare the defendant a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Court of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) the said Act and the schedule to s 25(2) of the said Act and the additional Powers of the High Court particularly s 17 of the Schedule. Enclosure 5 was an application by the defendant by way of summons in chambers to strike out encl 1.

[2] The plaintiff moves this Court to bar the defendant, subject to the leave of a Judge from instituting any legal proceedings in Court because the plaintiff has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings in Court. In determining this question the Court will have to look at the whole sequence of litigation initiated by the defendant to see whether the defendant fell came within the barometers of the said Act bearing in mind, the order being sought is rather draconian in its effects and should be exercised sparingly (See Re Vernazza [1959] 2 AER pg. 200) particularly at page 202 of the report where it was held:

"in determining whether proceedings were vexatious the Court must look at the whole history of the matter, not solely at the question whether the pleadings had throughout disclosed a cause of action, and in the present case, so regarded, the order should be granted."

[3] Let me set out the trail of proceedings arising between the plaintiff and the Defendant.

"1. On 1 July 2005, the plaintiff (the defendant in the Civil suit) had obtained summary judgment based on their counter claim against the defendant (the plaintiff in the Civil suit) for a sum of RM29,338.68 together with costs and interest in Kuala Lumpur High Court under Civil suit No: S3-23-22-2002 (Civil suit).

2. Being dissatisfied with the decision, the defendant filed an appeal to the Judge in Chambers and on 7 February 2006; the said appeal was dismissed with costs.

3. The defendant further appealed to the Court of Appeal against the said Order.

4. Before the Appeal in the Court of Appeal was heard, the defendant filed an application to set aside the Summary Judgment in the Civil suit on the alleged basis that:-

a. the Summary Judgment and the said Order are both nullities and/or that the Summary Judgment was an irregular judgment as it was obtained dishonestly on the basis that the judgment sum in the Summary Judgment was in excess of the amount actually due to the Plaintiff.

5. On 23 August 2007, the said application was dismissed with costs. The defendant then filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said decision. The Motion was dismissed on 19 March 2008.

6. As for the Defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said Order, the same was struck out for non compliance with s 68 of the Court Judicature Act 1964.

7. Having exhausted all legal avenues to set aside the summary Judgment in the Civil suit and refusing to accept the finality of the matter, the defendant filed a new suit against the plaintiff and its solicitors under the High Court Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: S7-22-435-2008 (2nd suit)

8. Through this 2nd suit, the defendant was attempting to re-open the matter as the prayers sought in the 2nd suit, inter alia, was to set aside the Summary Judgment and the said Order based on the same Allegations raised by the defendant in the Civil Suit, which was heard and determined against him.

9. The plaintiff then filed an application to strike out the 2nd Suit under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of High Court 1980 and on 7 August 2009, the said application was allowed with costs on a solicitors and client indemnity basis. However, there is an appeal pending against the said decision in the Court of Appeal.

10. With regard to the Summary Judgment, the plaintiff had filed a Bankruptcy Notice against the defendant as the defendant failed to satisfy the Judgment.

11. The defendant filed an Affidavit and Notice of Motion to set aside th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document