Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2285
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LIM JOO SWEE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCvC-385-09/2023]
Claims lack legal standing without registrable interest in land; procedural challenges must follow TCPA. Legal actions deemed time-barred under Limitation Act, and previous judgments preclude relitigation of issues.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) - Judicial review - Applications to strike out the Plaintiffs' claims - Claims deemed frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court process - Duty of care not established by the Fourth Defendant regarding real estate developments - Res judicata applied due to prior similar proceedings - Claim found time-barred as per section 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 - Plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge zoning or planning permissions on disputed lots. (Paras 20, 37, 48, 64, 78, 92).
(B) Legal Standing - Requirement of legal interest in property for objecting to rezoning - Adjacent landowners without registered interest cannot challenge land use changes - Claims must be made through proper procedural channels under TCPA. (Paras 78, 82, 88).
(C) Nuisance Claims - Vague assertions of impact on quality of life insufficient for actionable nuisance - Damages for mere economic loss not actionable under tort of nuisance - Defendants' lawful use of land protected under National Land Code 1965; must show concrete interference to sustain claim. (Paras 115, 119)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. striking out applications context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background to land dispute. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. planning permission and its objections. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. plaintiffs' claims against defendants. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. principles for striking out applications. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. arguments by plaintiffs against applications. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. arguments by defendants. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. court's findings on claims. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 9. claims barred by limitation act. (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 10. legal standing of plaintiffs. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 11. fifth defendant's role and obligations. (Para 92 , 93 , 94) |
| 12. procedural challenges regarding public authorities. (Para 100 , 101 , 102) |
| 13. negligence claims against fourth defendant. (Para 104 , 105 , 106 , 107) |
| 14. claims of nuisance and their legitimacy. (Para 116 , 117 , 118) |
| 15. issues with representative actions. (Para 123 , 124 , 125 , 126) |
Introduction
[1] There are four (4) applications before this Court for determination, namely encls 10, 23, 36 and 40. All five (5) Defendants have filed these applications, each seeking to strike out the Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012). The Defendants invoke various grounds under r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, contending that the Plaintiffs' claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous, vexatious, and/or constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.
[2] Enclosure 10 is the Fourth Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 and/or under O 92 r 4 of the ROC 2012.
[3] Enclosure 23 is the Fifth Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) (a), (b), and/or (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the ROC 2012.
[4] Enclosure 36 is the First Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) (b) and/or (c) of the ROC 2012 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
[5] Enclosure 40 is an application by the Second and Third Defendants to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the ROC 2012.
Background Facts
[6] This suit arises from a long-standing dispute concerning two parcels of land—H.S.(D) 266270, PT 12397, Pekan Baru Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor (Lot 12397) and PN 99575, Lot 45198, Pekan Baru Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor (Lot 45198)— which originally formed part of a 63-acre tract of land alienated to the First Defendant by the State Authority in 1992 for the designated use of "Bangunan".
[7] The First and Second Defendants entered into a joint venture to develop the land in two distinct components: (i) a residential development comprising 99 bungalow lots marketed as "Selangor Polo Residency"; and (ii) a polo and equestrian centre. Pursuant to this arrangement, the First Defendant sold approximately 60.67 acres to the Second Defendant by way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 20 December 1994 and a Supplementary Agreement dated 19 May 1997. The First Defendant contended that its role thereafter was solely that of a bare trustee, responsible only for securing the issuance of titles and facilitating their transfer.
[8] Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) for the Bungalow Lots were executed between the First and/or Second Defendants and the original purchasers. Of the four Plaintiffs in this action, only the Fourth Plaintiff is an original purchaser (vide SPA dated 2 April 1999). The remaining Plaintiffs and most current owners acquired their bungalow lots through subsequent transfers. The Third Defendant, a related entity, was not a party to any SPA with the Plaintiffs.
[9] The remaining land, which did not form part of the bungalow develo
