JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

(Enclosure 9)

Introduction

[1] Before the court is the Defendant's application dated 19 November 2024 in Enclosure 9 to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ dated 12 September 2024 and Statement of Claim dated 16 October 2024 pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff's action constitutes an abuse of the court process.

[2] Having considered the submissions by both parties, I find that the Defendant's application has merit and is hereby allowed with costs for the reasons set out below.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff, Khaleeg Marketing Sdn Bhd ("Khaieeg'), is a private limited company with its registered address at Level 5, Letter Box CP 5-01, Menara City One, No 3, Jalan Munshi Abdullah, 50100 Kuala Lumpur.

[4] The Defendant, Shaoxing County Baimei Trade Co, Ltd ("Shaoxing'), is a company established in China with its address at No 1501, 15th Floor, Zhonghai International Business Center, Diyang Road, Shaoxing, Zhenjiang Province, China.

[5] The genesis of the present dispute stems from an earlier suit between the same parties in Kuala Lumpur High court Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-378-08/2020 ("Suit 378"). In Suit 378, Shaoxing (as plaintiff) successfully obtained judgment against Shaoxing (as defendant) for the sum of USD 384,981.50 plus interest and costs ("the Judgment') dated 20 July 2022.

[6] The Judgment was based on a Statement of Account dated 18 June 2019, which Khaleeg had signed and acknowledged, confirming the outstanding amount owed to Shaoxing. Part of this Statement of Account included references to five invoices (BM18705B, BM18705C, BM18705D, BM18705 and BM19701) that were addressed to a third party, AR Bright Trading & Resources ("AR Bright').

[7] During the trial of Suit 378, Khaleeg had raised the issue that these five invoices were addressed to AR Bright and not to Khaleeg. However, the High court held that Khaleeg was liable for the payment of these invoices as part of the total sum due to Shaoxing. This was based on the evidence that Khaleeg had acknowledged the Statement of Account and that PW-1 (Shaoxing's witness) had testified that Khaleeg had instructed Shaoxing to send the goods to AR Bright, but Khaleeg would be responsible for payment.

[8] Khaleeg appealed against the Judgment to the court of Appeal via Civil Appeal No W-02(NCC)(W)-1521-08/2022 ("Appeal 1521"), but the appeal was dismissed on 18 April 2024. Subsequently, Khaleeg filed an application for leave to appeal to the Federal court, which was also dismissed on 22 August 2024.

[9] Following these unsuccessful appeals, Khaleeg filed the present suit on 12 September 2024, seeking the following declarations and orders:

a) A declaration that the Judgment dated 20 July 2022 is not valid for enforcement as long as Shaoxing has not complied with paragraph (a) in the Judgment;

b) A declaration that Khaleeg is entitled to receive the benefit of the value of AR Bright invoices based on the Judgment;

c) An order that Shaoxing should assign to Khaleeg the full value of AR Bright invoices (BM18705B, BM18705C, BM18705D, BM18705 and BM19701);

d) An order that pending the determination of reliefs, all enforcement processes of the Judgment should be stayed or suspended against Khaleeg; and

e) Other related reliefs including damages for failure to assign the benefit value of the AR Bright invoices.

[10] On 19 November 2024, Shaoxing filed the present application in encl 9 to strike out Khaleeg's claim on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of the court process. Shaoxing contends that Khaleeg is attempting to relitigate issues that have already been decided in Suit 378 and that the present suit is an improper attempt to vary a final and conclusive judgment.

The Applicaction In Enclosure 9

[11] Enclosure 9 is a striking out application filed by Shaoxing seeking mainly that the original claim contained in the Writ dated 12 September 2024 and Statement of Claim dated 16 October 2022, by Khaleeg against Shao