SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2687

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH & ORS – Appellant
Versus
DATO SRI ANDREW KAM TAI YEOW – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Michael Chow,Neoh Kai Sheng ,Respondent Advocate: Mark Ho,Venkat Ram Dasaratharaj

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] To determine whether a litigant is a vexatious litigant is an unpleasant process, to say the least. Considerations must be made to the facts at hand that demonstrate repeated filing of suits on matter(s) already decided upon, which in turn, may conclude actions ill-favoured that they tantamount to habitual and persistent conduct. The declared vexatious litigant would thereafter not be allowed to commence any further legal suits save by leave of the court. Such an order shall be gazetted. For this case, such application stemmed from the unfortunate protracted legal drama between father and son that had flooded our superior courts since 2017.

[2] The 1st Plaintiff, the patriarch of the Kam family, together with 10 of the companies hereinafter referred to as the Raub Mining Development Company Sdn Bhd or RMDC Group, had filed this application by way of Originating Summons (OS) to declare his estranged son, the Defendant, a vexatious litigant. The 2nd Plaintiff (Raub Mining & Development Company Sdn Bhd or RMDC) wholly owns the 3rd Plaintiff (Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd or ROM). The 4th to 11th Plaintiffs collectively own approximately 90% of the RMDC, making the 4th to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top