Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1]Before this Court is the First Defendant’s (“D1”) application via Enclosure 54 (“the Application”) seeking two primary reliefs:

(a)An order to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) (“the Striking Out Relief); and

(b)A declaration that the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant pursuant to Section 25(2)17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, with consequential orders to restrict the Plaintiff from instituting further proceedings without leave of the court (“the Vexatious Litigant Relief).

[2]The Application is vigorously contested by the Plaintiff. After careful consideration of the pleadings, affidavits, and the detailed arguments advanced by learned counsel for both parties, this Court now renders its decision.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[3]This dispute arises out of a business relationship between the parties in relation to an iron ore mining project on a parcel of land situated at Bukit Panjang, Kemaman, Terengganu.

[4]In that context, D1 is the registered proprietor of the land and the holder of the relevant mining licence. On 11 March 2019, D1 and the Plaintiff entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (“JVA”) for a term of five years, expiring on 10 March 2024.

[5]The JVA contained detailed provisions governing, among others, compensation, royalty and tribute payments, as well as the consequences of termination. Of particular relevance is Clause 15.2, which provides that where the agreement is terminated on account of a breach by the Operator, namely the Plaintiff, all accumulated iron ore stockpiles shall vest in D1 without any entitlement to compensation.

[6]The relationship soured, leading to multiple legal proceedings:

(a)Originating Summons No. TA-24NCC-3-07/2024 (“the OS”): The Plaintiff filed this proceeding in July 2024. On 2 October 2024, the High Court (Dato’ Hassan bin Abdul Ghani J) dismissed the OS with costs of RM10,000.00. The Plaintiff did not appeal against this decision.

(b)Sessions Court Suit No. TB-B52NCVC-1-07/2024 (“the Sessions Court Suit”): D1 (as plaintiff) sued the Plaintiff (as defendant) in this suit. The Plaintiff filed a Counterclaim against D1 and others. On 14 May 2025, upon D1’s application, the Sessions Court struck out the Plaintiff's Counterclaim with costs of RM5.000.00. The Plaintiff did not appeal against this decision.

(c)The Present Suit (TA-22NCC-2-01/2025): The Plaintiff filed this writ action against D1 and the Second Defendant (“D2”). The Plaintiff’s claim is essentially that D1 breached the JVA and wrongfully allowed D2 to remove and sell the iron ore stockpiles that rightfully belonged to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims, inter alia, injunctions, accounts, general, exemplary, and punitive damages. It is pertinent to note D2 has since settled the Plaintiff’s claim, pursuant to which the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of its action against D2 on 10 February 2025.

ISSUES

[7]The issues for this Court’s determination are:

(1)Whether the Plaintiff’s claim in this suit should be struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules; and

(2)Whether the Plaintiff should be declared a vexatious litigant under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIESA. D1 ‘s Contentions for Striking Out

[8]Learned counsel for D1 argues that the Plaintiff’s claim is obviously unsustainable and an abuse of the court’s process for the following reasons:

(a)(a) Res Judicata: The Plaintiff’s cause of action and the material facts and issues raised in this suit are substantially the same as those raised and adjudicated upon in the OS (which was dismissed) and the Sessions Court Counterclaim (which was struck out). As these prior decisions are final, the doctrine of res judicata operates to bar the Plaintiff from re-litigating the same matters. D1 relies on Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn