Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1808
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
POEY YEE MENG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-620-09/2021]
The Court has the authority to strike out non-compliant Statements of Claim under the Rules of 2012 to ensure just and expedient case management.
Headnote:(A) Rules of 2012 – Compliance and drafting of pleadings – The Court exercised discretion to strike out the plaintiffs' claim due to non-compliance with Rules of 2012, highlighting defects in the Statement of Claim including unnecessary length and lack of clarity – The Court emphasized that the statement must be concise and relevant material facts should be clearly articulated. (Paras 1, 14, 16, 22, 38)
(B) Court's authority – Courts can strike out pleadings on their own motion to ensure compliance with rules and for just disposition of cases – Specific provisions allow for managing pleadings and dismissing actions to prevent delays or responses that do not meet legal standards. (Paras 34, 39, 42)
Facts of the case: The case involved 133 plaintiffs alleging grievances related to uneven application of the terms of a sale and purchase agreement with the defendants concerning land development, specifically regarding delays and alleged illegalities in the agreements. (Paras 1-13)
Findings of Court: The Court found that the Statement of Claim did not comply with provisions of the Rules, leading to sufficient grounds to strike it out while allowing the plaintiffs liberty to file a fresh claim. (Para 43)
Issues: The central issue was whether the Court has discretion to strike out the Statement of Claim despite no application from the defendants. (Para 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the multiple defects in the plaintiffs' pleading rendered it non-compliant with the Rules, justifying the dismissal of the claim while allowing the opportunity to amend and refile. (Paras 38, 42)
Result: Claim struck out with liberty to file afresh.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Court in this case used its discretion on its own motion to strike out the plaintiffs' claim for being in non-compliance with the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules").
The Plaintiffs' Statement Of Claim
[2] The plaintiffs' claim as reflected in the Statement of claim seems to be a representative action involving 133 plaintiffs. The first few pages of the Statement of Claim are devoted to introducing each plaintiff.
[3] Be that as it may, in para 15 the 1st defendant is introduced as a the developer of a project called "The Meridin @ Medini" ("the Project") on a land held under HS(D) 478932 PTD 170665, Mukim Pulai, Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor ("the said land") belonging to the 2nd defendant, a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965.
[4] The 2nd defendant had leased the said land to Medini Land Sdn Bhd ("Medini Land") for a period of 99 years beginning from 15 April 2013 and ending on 14 April 2012 ("the said lease").
[5] The 3rd to the 13th defendants are banks and financial institutions.
[6] Medini land had entered into an agreement to sell the lease to the 1st defendant. Meanwhile the 1st defendant on purchasing the lease was given approval by the 2nd defendant to develop the land for housing and the lease of the individual parcel of land to be sold to the plaintiffs.
[7] As stated in paras 119 and 120, 104 plaintiffs had agreed to purchase this parcel of land and had entered into an agreement to purchase this parcel of land. On purchase of the parcel of the land the 104 plaintiffs had paid a 10 % deposit and the balance purchase price was to be paid progressively by cash or from the loan from the defendant banks and financial institutions.
[8] The plaintiffs now claim that the sale and purchase agreement did not comply with the regulations as the completion period was given as 48 months as opposed to 36 months allowed under the law. The 104 plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to the late delivery penalty for the period of delivering of vacant possession exceeding the 36 months.
[9] Apart from the delay in delivery of vacant possession the plaintiffs allege that the sale and purchase agreement of the lease is defective and invalid as it is unlawful.
[10] The illegality of the sale and purchase agreement is stated in para 134 of the Statement of Claim. These includes non-compliance of reg 11(1) of the Housing Development (Control And Licensing) Regulations 1989, rescheduling of the progressive payment, the lease period exceeded 30 years which is unlawful, a separate agreement for sale of the parking lot which is unlawful, the 1st and 2nd defendants had unlawfully signed the memorandum of transfer in Form 14A to the plaintiffs as lessors and registered the names of the plaintiffs as lessors, the 1st and 2nd defendants had wrongfully entered into a trust deed by granting lease to that 1 person to circumvent s 225(2) of the National Land Code, the contribution to the maintenance fund by the plaintiffs is unlawful as the maintenance is the responsibility of the 2nd defendant and allowing the plaintiffs to participate in the annual general meeting of the management body.
[11] From paras 134 to 148, the plaintiffs repeat what has already been stated in para 134 with an additional contention that the 1st and 2nd defendants need to comply with the law rather than the terms of the sale and purchase agreement which are unlawful.
[12] In para 149, the plaintiffs tabulate the loan taken from the banks and financial institutions and the amount of loan taken by each of the 104 plaintiffs and contend that the 1st and 2nd defendants should be responsible for this loan.
[13] In para 152 the plaintiffs ask for various reliefs including a declaration that the sale and purchase agreement does not comply with the law and therefore invalid and therefore the defendants have to compensate the plaintiffs for the losses suffered.
The Issue
[14] It is clear from one look at the Statement of Claim
