JUDGMENT

Avinder Singh Gill Ranjit Singh JC:

Decision On Enclosure 73

[1] The Second and Third Defendants applied to strike out the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of (RC) 2012.

[2] By an Order dated 5 May 2025, this Court allowed an Application by the Plaintiffs to add the Second and Third Defendants as parties to this action.

[3] This led to the filing of an Amended Statement of Claim dated 19 May 2025, which added the Second and Third Defendants.

[4] The Second and Third Defendants are the registered owners of a property held under Lot 550654, Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur. This property is located at No 6, Jalan Metro Perdana Barat 11, Sri Edaran Industrial Park, 52100 Kuala Lumpur. The First Defendant occupied this property (Premises No 6) as tenant at the material time.

[5] The Third Plaintiff had purchased the neighbouring property, located at No. 4, Jalan Metro Perdana Barat 11, Sri Edaran Industrial Park, 52100 Kuala Lumpur. (Premises No 4).

[6] A fire started at Premises No 6 which spread to Premises No 4. The report by the Fire and Rescue Department stated that the source of the fire ignition was due to resistance heating on a machine's motor located in the rear portion of Premises No 6. It is alleged that the fire spread to the Premises No 4 and this caused loss to the Third Plaintiff.

[7] Due to this fire, the Third Plaintiff made respective claims to the First and Second Plaintiffs, as insurers, and was paid the sums of RM3,479,789.90 and RM1,413,209.34, respectively, by the First and Second Plaintiffs.

[8] The First and Second Plaintiffs bring a claim against the Second and Third Defendants pursuant to Subrogation forms signed by the Third Plaintiff.

[9] On 10 July 2025, the Second and Third Defendants filed their Application to Strike Out the claim against them.

The Respective Pleaded Positions

[10] Based on the pleaded case of the Plaintiffs in the Amended Statement of Claim, the claim against the Second and Third Defendants can be summarised thus:

a. The First and Second Plaintiffs assert that the Second and Third Defendants owed a duty of care to the Third Plaintiff. As registered owners of the premises occupied by the First Defendant, and being the parents of the First Defendant's owner, they were presumed to have knowledge of the operations and associated risks.

b. The First and Second Plaintiffs highlight that the Second and Third Defendants had rented the premises to the First Defendant, for profit, under a rental agreement dated 5 December 2022, and thus bore responsibility for ensuring that the operations conducted therein did not cause harm to neighbouring properties.

c. Furthermore, they were obligated to ensure the premises were used safely and did not pose a danger to the public or adjacent occupants.

d. The First and Second Plaintiffs claim that the Second and Third Defendants breached this duty by failing to ensure the First Defendant operated safely and could have prevented the fire incident.

e. They allege that losses suffered were a direct result of this breach.

f. Additionally, the Second and Third Defendants are alleged to be vicariously liable for the fire originating from Premises No. 6.

g. They also failed to impose any contractual obligation on the First Defendant under cl 3.14 of the rental agreement to procure public liability insurance.

h. The particulars of the breach include multiple failures: failing to ensure the safe use of the premises by the First Defendant; neglecting to take prudent steps to protect neighbours; failing to require insurance coverage; and not preventing the fire or its spread. That they also failed to maintain the safety of the surrounding premises, including the Third Plaintiffs, during the First Defendant's operations. Lastly, they neglected to conduct adequate inspections or investigations to mitigate risks of damage arising from the First Defendant's activities.

[11] The Second and Third Defendants, on the other hand, d