The court can strike out defenses and enter judgment for a party when the opposing party fails to comply with mandatory procedural directions under Rules of Court, constituting a significant procedural abuse.

Introduction

[1] This court considers it necessary at the outset to make plain the nature of the decision that follows. The judgment delivered herein does not turn upon the factual controversies between the plaintiffs and the defendants, nor upon the arguments raised in respect of the substantive claim. Instead, the court's determination rests entirely upon the procedural framework in O 34 of the Rules of court 2012. The defendants, despite repeated opportunities and clear directions, failed to comply with this court's mandatory case management requirements. Their persistent absence, neglect, and disregard of orders made in pre-trial case management have left the court with no alternative but to invoke its express powers under O 34 rr 1(3) and/or 2(3) to strike out their defences and to enter judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.

Background Facts

[2] For completeness, the court sets out the relevant background facts. The plaintiffs, Parvathy a/p Subramaniam and Vasanthi a/p Raman, are the duly appointed administrators of the estate of the late Rajeanteran a/l Marimuthu ("the Deceased") pursuant to a Grant of Letters of Administration issued on 6 September 2023. The 1st Plaintiff is also the lawful wife of the Deceased. They commenced this action in their representative capacity to recover the proceeds of a land transaction which, according to them, have been misapplied by the defendants.

[3] The deceased was the lawful attorney of one Rosmawati binti Sayuti, the registered proprietor of a property situated at No. 27, Jalan Sci 5/8, Lakeside Homes, Sunway City, Ipoh, held under H.S. (D) 171582, P.T. 220378, Mukim Hulu Kinta, District of Kinta, Perak. By an Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 1 August 2012, duly registered both in the High court of Malaya and at the relevant Land Office, Rosmawati vested in the deceased absolute authority over the said property. Acting pursuant to this power, the deceased entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 7 May 2021 with a purchaser, Chan Kok Seng.

[4] The firm of Amran Joseph, Chan & Co ("the 3rd Defendant") and its partners, namely Sakthivel Nagalingam ("the 1st Defendant") and Joseph a/l Sebestian ("the 2nd Defendant"), acted as solicitors for the deceased in the said conveyance. The purchaser was represented by Choy Kam Lee of K.L. Choy & Co Upon completion of the sale, the total purchase price of RM1,200,000.00 was released in stages by the purchaser's solicitors and deposited into the client account of the 3rd Defendant. Between May 2021 and July 2022, five cheques were issued in favour of the 3rd Defendant's client account, amounting in aggregate to RM1.2 million.

[5] On 28 February 2022, the deceased gave written instructions that 90% of the net sale proceeds were to be released to the 5th Defendant, Lamin & Co, to enable settlement of liabilities with the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN), with the balance after such settlement to be refunded to him. The remaining 10% was to be paid to another individual designated by the Deceased. However, the plaintiffs contend that these instructions were disregarded. Instead, large sums were diverted by the defendants to parties not authorised, and payments were made to individuals and third parties unconnected with the transaction.

[6] In particular, the individual who was to receive only 10% (RM120,000.00) was in fact paid RM675,000.00 Lamin & Co (the 5th Defendant) and its proprietor, Shahril bin Lamin (the fourth defendant), received only RM300,000.00 instead of RM1,080,000.00 as directed. The 1st to 3rd Defendants also retained RM31,815.00 as fees and expenses. Consequently, the deceased never received any portion of the sale proceeds, nor was the