Back
2025 MarsdenLR 238
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
POEY YEE MENG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR (ENCLS 1 103 133 134 135 & 15.... – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-620-09/2021]
The principle for striking out requires claims to be obviously unsustainable, with courts exercising this power cautiously to prevent abuse of judicial process. Limitation issues render claims unviable for trial.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 r 19 - Striking out applications - The court allowed the defendants' applications to strike out the plaintiff's claims on the basis that they were obviously unsustainable and vexatious. Summary justice requires that a claim must demonstrate reasonable cause of action. The principle states that striking out should be exercised with caution. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 90)
(B) Jurisprudence - The court held that the claims were barred by limitation and lacked merit in light of the Federal court ruling in Obata-Ambak Holdings, which clarified that earlier extensions granted are valid. Applications for striking out cannot be made if there are complex legal issues requiring mature consideration. (Paras 39, 56, 91)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, comprising 134 parties, initiated action claiming liquidated damages for delay in delivery based on sale and purchase agreements for leasehold properties. The action was filed more than six years post-agreement, raising issues of validity against the National Land Code. (Paras 19, 21, 22)
Findings of Court:
The court found the plaintiffs' claims to be obviously unsustainable and frivolous as they attempted to challenge valid contracts and reliance on prior judicial decisions which they were aware of. (Paras 90, 91)
Issues: The primary issues addressed included the validity of the sale and purchase agreements and whether claims for liquidated damages were time-barred or illegal under current land codes. (Paras 26, 39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that claims must be substantiated at trial; however, where the law is clear and undisputed, a claim may be struck out summarily to save judicial resources. The Federal court rulings indicated the plaintiffs' arguments were weakened by their own delays and contractual obligations. (Paras 2, 90)
Result: Plaintiffs' claims struck out with costs awarded to the defendants.
The statement that a plaintiff cannot resist a striking out application by claiming that they will obtain evidence later is based on the general legal principle that summary procedures are designed to dismiss clearly untenable claims without the need for extensive evidence or trial proceedings (!) . The court's emphasis is on the appropriateness of dismissing claims that are manifestly without merit on the face of the pleadings, rather than on claims that require further evidence to establish their validity (!) . This approach ensures that the summary process is not misused to avoid the proper stages of litigation where factual evidence is necessary to determine the merits of a claim (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court allowed striking out applications. (Para 1) |
| 2. order 18 rule 19 application standards. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. definition and case references on striking out. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. requirements of appeal post 1 october 2022. (Para 6) |
| 5. plaintiffs' claims based on legality of spas. (Para 30) |
| 6. proprietors' rights under relevant statutes. (Para 84) |
| 7. court's decision on frivolous and vexatious claims. (Para 90 , 91) |
Introduction
[1] Upon the applications by both the 1st ("D1") and the 2nd ("D2") Defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' (Ps') action against them, this court had on 10 June 2025 allowed both their applications. These are the grounds for the decision made.
Relook At The Jurisprudence Of Striking Out Applications
[2] Order 18 r 19 of the Rules of court 2012 (" ROC ") provides that:
"(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 on an application under subparagraph (1)(a).
(3) This rule shall, as far as applicable, apply to an originating summons as if it were a pleading."
Position On Striking Out Pre 1 October 2022
[3] The principles on striking out is comprehensively set out in the court of Appeal authority of Amanah Raya Berhad v. Ong Chin Hoo ; [2020] 3 MLJ 463 ; [2019] 6 CLJ 41 (CA). In this case, Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (now FCJ) speaking for the court of Appeal comprising Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat JCA (then CJ) and Zabariah Mohd Yusoff JCA (now FCJ) said:
"[33] When the grounds of judgment of both Pegasus Engineers (above) and See Thong (above) are properly appreciated, there is no conflict in the propositions they stand for. The proposition in Pegasus Engineers (above), despite being made 20 years ago in 1998, still holds water today - that just because there is a right of appeal even from decisions on interlocutory matters, it does not necessarily mean that this right MUST be exercised. And for very good reasons, too. When parties file interlocutory applications and the losing party appeals to the appellate court, this means a delay of the disposal of the full trial or hearing as all parties involved await the outcome of the appellate proceedings.
[34] The case of See Thong (above) makes it crystal clear that the combination of various limbs of O 18 r 19(1) in one single application should not be deemed to render that application irregular and defective. The court of Appeal has laid down the guidelines for the order of the various limbs to be considered - first, limb (a) should be considered without having regard to the affidavits, then only the court should proceed to consider the other limbs in light of the affidavit evidence.
[35] However, we need to draw a distinction between the facts of Pegasus Engineers (above) where the defendant appealed against the High court decision to dismiss its striking out application, and the facts of See Thong (above) where the plaintiffs appealed against the High court decision to allow the defendant's striking out application. As clearly enunciated by the learned court of Appeal Judge in See Thong (above), where the court wrongly exercises its power to strike out a claim, the plaintiff would suffer an injustice. The relevant passage in the judgment of RamlyAli JCA (as he then was) is set out below:
[23] Judges dealing with striking out application under O 18 r 19 of the RHC must always bear in mind that the power to strike a case under the order without having to go for trial should be exercised sparingly a
