2011 MarsdenLR 4502

VARGHESE GEORGE
PERBADANAN NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
SYED OMAR SYED MOHAMED – Respondent

A second suit filed after a previous one was struck out for intentional default constitutes an abuse of process, irrespective of the expiration of the limitation period.

Headnote:(A) Rules of High Court 1980 - Order 18 Rule 19(b), (c), and (d) - Peremptory orders - The court has the authority to strike out a suit for intentional and contumelious default. A second suit based on the same facts after the first was struck out constitutes abuse of process. (Paras 5.1, 10.1, 12.2)

(B) Procedural non-compliance - Late filing of affidavits does not automatically prevent consideration unless it causes serious miscarriage of justice. (Paras 4.6, 11.1)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff's prior suit was struck out due to failure to comply with court orders regarding document discovery, and the present action was initiated subsequently, claiming statutory limitations had not expired.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the second suit was struck out as an abuse of process, affirming that the Plaintiff's conduct was intentional and contumelious.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Plaintiff's actions constituted an abuse of process and if the late-filed affidavits could be considered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that intentional default warrants the striking out of a second suit based on the same grounds, regardless of limitations, while procedural non-compliance may be overlooked unless it causes injustice.

Result: The Defendant's application to strike out the suit was granted with costs.