JUDGMENT

Gan Techiong JC:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff had named nine parties as defendants in this civil suit, praying for various orders.

[2] The subject matter herein is the 9th Defendant's application to strike-out the plaintiff's claim against him, on the ground that it is frivolous and vexatious, and tantamount to an abuse of process of court.

[3] The first issue for determination is a question of law on whether there is a duty of care owed by an external auditor (the 9th Defendant) to an individual proprietor of a parcel in a strata development. The second issue is whether the plaintiff's claim against the 9th Defendant is obviously unsustainable. The principles applicable to a striking-out application under O 18 r 19 Rules of 2012 are trite, as expounded in Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd; [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993] 2 AMR 1969.

[4] On the said question of law, there are authorities to support the 9th Defendant's contention that an external auditor of the accounts of a management corporation - whose contractual relationship is with the management corporation - does not owe any duty of care to individual proprietors in a strata development. On the facts, I find that there is no basis whatsoever for the plaintiff to name the external auditor as a co-defendant. It was an abuse of court process for the plaintiff to have 'dragged' the auditor into his suit against the management corporation (the 1st Defendant) and the other proprietors of parcels within the strata development. Therefore, I decided to allow the 9th Defendant's striking-out application. My reasons are explained in detail below.

Background Facts

[5] The Plaintiff and his sister - who has been named as a third party in this suit - are co-proprietors of one unit of apartment in the strata development known as Bangsar Aman in Kuala Lumpur.

[6] The 9th Defendant is a registered auditor and a chartered accountant by profession.

[7] On 26 November 2021 a resolution was passed at an Annual General Meeting ("AGM") of the 1st Defendant to appoint the 9th Defendant's firm, namely Messrs Daniel & Co, as the external independent and licensed auditor of the 1st Defendant (the management corporation).

[8] The Plaintiff's sister, who is the plaintiff's co-proprietor of his unit, was elected the treasurer of the 1st Defendant (management corporation) during the same AGM as when the 9th Defendant was engaged as auditor.

[9] The Plaintiff's said sister is a third party in this suit following the issuance of Third Party Notice by the 3rd to 6th Defendants.

The Plaintiff's Claim Against The 9th Defendant

[10] The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim is very lengthy; the English translation is 120 pages long. However, as against the 9th Defendant, little was pleaded by the plaintiff.

[11] In para 174 of his Statement of Claim, the plaintiff pleaded as follows against the 2nd and 9th Defendants:

"174. It was foreseeable that the Plaintiff and other parcel proprietors would rely on the accounts, financial statements, and audit reports prepared by Crest Consulting Services and Daniel & Co to assess Bangsar Aman Management Corporation's financial standing."

[12] In para 175, he alleged that the "negligence" of the 2nd and 9th Defendants caused the plaintiff to "sustain measurable harm, including the continued financial management" by the management committees. The exact words of para 175 are as follows:

"175. As a direct result of the negligence of Crest Consulting Services and Daniel & Co, the plaintiff sustained measurable harm, including the continued financial mismanagement by the October 2023 and/or May 2024 Management Committees".

[13] Lastly, in para 176 the plaintiff pleaded liability for "negligence":

"176. By reason of the matters aforesaid, Dato Mohan Karthigasu of Crest Consulting and Isaac Daniel of Daniel & Co are jointly and severally liable in damages to the plaintiff for negligence."

[14] In the prayers in his Statement of Claim, the plainti