JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

[Enclosures 3, 16, 17 and 21]

Preliminary

[1] Four applications are being heard concurrently by the court. In this regard, there are four enclosures representing them: Enclosure 3, Enclosure 16, Enclosure 17 and Enclosure 21.

[2] By way of Enclosure 3, the plaintiff seeks interim injunctive relief to maintain the status quo of her membership without the defendants' interference. Upon the plaintiff's appearance for an ex parte hearing, the court ordered that an inter partes hearing be held instead.

[3] In Enclosure 16, the 1st to 19th Defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012").

[4] Similar to Enclosure 16, Enclosure 21 has also been filed by the 20th Defendant.

[5] In Enclosure 17, the plaintiff seeks a stay and suspension of the operation of the Royal Lake Club Kuala Lumpur's ("Club") Constitution, which terminates her membership and declares her a persona non grata, and further seeks to restore her membership status. This event followed the service of the plaintiff's cause papers on the defendants.

[6] Considering the nature and effect of Enclosure 16 and Enclosure 21, I will hear these enclosures first before considering Enclosure 3 and Enclosure 17.

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[7] The Plaintiff has been a member of the Club since 1978.

[8] The 1st to 7th Defendants, as well as the 16th and 17th Defendants, are members of the Club's Investigation Committee ("IC") appointed by the Club's General Committee ("GC").

[9] The 8th to 10th Defendants are members of the Club's Disciplinary Committee ("DC") appointed by the GC.

[10] In the case of the 11th to 19th Defendants, they are the office bearers of the Club.

[11] The 20th Defendant is the Club's registered public officer.

[12] The action against the 21st Defendant has been withdrawn.

[13] The dispute began on 30 March 2024.

[14] On this date, the plaintiff was found to have used the Infant Feeding Room, a small room without a door (but screened with a curtain), within the Ladies' Changing Room within the Club, to conduct an online meeting with her laptop.

[15] Despite being instructed by a member of the Club's staff, the plaintiff refused to end her meeting in the Infant Feeding Room.

[16] As a result, the General Manager of the Club lodged a complaint against the plaintiff through his letter dated 19 April 2024 which was supported by an incident report prepared by another member of staff.

[17] Upon receiving the said complaint and in accordance with r 19 of the Club's Constitution and Disciplinary Proceedings Byelaws No. 7, the Club requested an explanation from the plaintiff on 24 April 2024.

[18] By way of her letter dated 7 May 2024, the plaintiff responded to the letter dated 24 April 2024, denying that there was any rule or byelaw made by the GC restricting this room's usage.

[19] As a result of the plaintiff's letter and pursuant to r 19 of the Constitution and Disciplinary Proceedings Byelaws No. 7, the Club's IC determined that the complaint was meritorious and referred it to the DC.

[20] Therefore, a disciplinary hearing was scheduled for 23 July 2024 at which time the plaintiff was informed of the hearing date and the charge against her, which was that she had violated r 18.1 of the Constitution.

[21] In light of this, the plaintiff provided her written response to the charge via her letter dated 15 July 2024 in which she offered a detailed explanation to refute the alleged unwarranted complaint.

[22] On 23 July 2024, the Club's DC heard the said complaint in the plaintiff's presence, where she pleaded not guilty.

[23] Following this incident involving the use of the infant feeding room, the plaintiff was sanctioned by the Club's DC with a 3-month suspension and RM500.00 fine.

[24] In response, the plaintiff appealed the decision via a letter dated 15 August 2024, which suspended the decision pending the hearing of the plaintiff's appeal by the Club's GC.

[25] After