1. Action for conspiracy against two defendants — Consent judgment entered between plaintiffs and first defendant — Application to strike out claim against second defendant. (Para 1 , 10 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 838
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
QUAY CHEW SOON, J
EU YEOK SIEW & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
RAJA IRA BENAZIR RAJA AHMAD AZIZAN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-370-06/2025]
Petitioner Advocates:Elizabeth Lau Yuen Jin,Hugo Ng Yong Zheng,Hazel Siau Ju Shuen ,Respondent Advocate: Bhavanash Sharma Gurchan Singh,Gheetal Kaur Joginder Singh
A release of one joint tortfeasor in a conspiracy claim extinguishes the indivisible cause of action, discharging all other joint tortfeasors. This legal discharge cannot be overridden by a reservation clause in a settlement agreement, and maintaining the remaining defendant as a contingency is an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) - Striking out of pleadings - Summary procedure applicable only in plain and obvious cases where a claim is obviously unsustainable on its face; the court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claim is frivolous or vexatious (Paras 4-7).
(B) Tort - Joint Tortfeasors - Release Rule - Where a plaintiff releases one joint tortfeasor, it operates as a discharge of the other joint tortfeasors because the cause of action is one and indivisible; the plaintiff is thus barred from maintaining the same claim against the remaining alleged tortfeasor (Paras 18-23).
(C) Conspiracy - Legal requirements - A conspiracy requires two or more persons acting with a common design; the release of one alleged co-conspirator extinguishes the factual and legal basis for the conspiracy claim, rendering a claim against a single remaining defendant legally impossible (Paras 29-31).
(D) Abuse of Process - Maintaining a defendant as a contingency or "backup" after settling with a co-tortfeasor is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of the process of the court (Paras 17, 49).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs brought an action alleging conspiracy against two defendants, asserting a joint wrongdoing giving rise to a single composite cause of action. Plaintiffs subsequently entered into a consent judgment with the first defendant, compromising and extinguishing all claims against that party. The consent judgment included a clause stating that the claim against the second defendant would not be affected or extinguished. The second defendant applied to strike out the plaintiffs' claim on the grounds that the settlement with the first defendant extinguished the cause of action.
Findings of Court:
The action against the second defendant is obviously unsustainable. The settlement with the first defendant operated as an accord and satisfaction, automatically discharging the second defendant. The reservation clause in the consent judgment cannot override the legal operation of the release rule, as parties cannot by agreement preserve a cause of action that is legally non-existent.
Issues: Whether the settlement and release of one alleged co-conspirator in a conspiracy claim discharges the other joint tortfeasor and whether the continuation of the action against the remaining defendant constitutes an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: A release granted to one joint tortfeasor operates as a discharge of others because the cause of action is indivisible. In a conspiracy claim, which by definition requires at least two parties, the release of one party removes the substratum of the claim. Such a legal consequence cannot be overridden by a contractual reservation clause. Maintaining a defendant as a contingency in the event a settlement with another party is not satisfied is an abuse of process.
Result: Striking out application allowed with costs of RM10,000.00 awarded to the second defendant.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether settlement with one alleged conspirator extinguishes the cause of action against the other, despite a reservation clause and non-payment of settlement sums. (Para 3 , 36 , 37 )
3. Releasing one joint tortfeasor extinguishes the indivisible cause of action, rendering a conspiracy claim against a single remaining defendant unsustainable and an abuse of process. (Para 8 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
4. A release granted to one joint tortfeasor operates as a discharge of other joint tortfeasors because the cause of action is one and indivisible. (Para 19 , 20 , 26 )
5. Application to strike out the claim against the second defendant allowed with costs. (Para 2 , 50 )
6. What is the legal effect of releasing one joint tortfeasor in a joint cause of action?
A release granted to one joint tortfeasor operates as a discharge of the other joint tortfeasors. This is because the cause of action is considered one and indivisible; once it is released, all persons otherwise liable are consequently released. (Para 19 , 20 , 26 )
7. How does the release of one party affect a claim based on conspiracy?
Conspiracy requires two or more persons acting with a common design. Once one alleged conspirator is released, the combination and actionable conspiracy cease to exist, rendering a conspiracy claim against a single remaining defendant legally impossible and unsustainable. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 )
8. Can a reservation clause in a consent judgment prevent the application of the release rule?
No. The release rule operates as a matter of law. Parties cannot, by agreement, preserve a cause of action that is legally non-existent, and a reservation clause cannot defeat the application of the release rule. (Para 38 , 39 )
9. Does the non-payment of a settlement sum allow a plaintiff to maintain a claim against other joint tortfeasors?
No. Non-payment conflates enforcement risk with legal viability. A breach of a consent judgment does not allow re-litigation of the original matter; the plaintiffs must instead file execution proceedings against the judgment debtor to recover the settlement sum. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 )
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The 2nd Defendant ("D2") filed a notice of application dated 1 December 2025 in encl 55 to strike out the plaintiffs' claim. The striking out application is made under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012.
[2] On 7 January 2026, I allowed D2's striking out application in encl 55. Here are the grounds of my decision.
The 2nd Defendant's Striking Out Application in Enclosure 55
[3] The grounds for striking out as stated in encl 55 reads:
"4) Plaintif-plaintif telah pada 21 August 2025 merekodkan satu penghakiman persetujuan dengan 1st Defendant, yang menyelesaikan secara penuh, muktamad dan menyeluruh segala tuntutan plaintif-plaintif terhadap 1st Defendant. Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut menegaskan bahawa tiada lagi apa-apa liabiliti, tuntutan, atau relif yang kekal terhadap 1st Defendant dalam tindakan ini.
5) Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut merupakan perkembangan fakta yang material, relevan, dan substantif, kerana ia secara langsung melupuskan punca tindakan yang sama yang sebelum ini digantungkan terhadap kedua-dua defendan. Tambahan pula, pernyataan tuntutan plaintif-plaintif sendiri berasaskan dakwaan kononnya wujud "konspirasi bersama" antara 1st Defendant dan 2nd Defendant. Sekiranya salah satu pihak kononnya berkonspirasi telah dilepaskan sepenuhnya melalui suatu penghakiman persetujuan, tuduhan konspirasi tersebut tidak lagi boleh dikekalkan dari segi undang-undang.
6) Adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang bagi plaintif-plaintif untuk menyelesaikan sepenuhnya dengan salah satu pengkomplot (conspirator), namun mengekalkan tuntutan terhadap pihak yang lain seolah-olah wujud konspirasi unilateral, yang merupakan suatu yang bercanggah. Ini mewujudkan ketidakselarasan undang-undang yang ketara dan ketidakadilan yang jelas, kerana premis konspirasi memerlukan tindakan bersama bukan satu pihak sahaja.
7) Di sisi undang-undang, prinsip berkaitan joint tortfeasors seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam kes Duck v. Mayeu [1892] 2 QB 511 adalah terpakai. Sekiranya plaintif-plaintif mendakwa bahawa 1st Defendant dan 2nd Defendant merupakan tortfeasor bersama atas punca tindakan yang sama, pelepasan dan penyelesaian penuh terhadap salah satu tortfeasor bersama tersebut membawa kesan undang-undang bahawa liabiliti terhadap tortfeasor bersama yang lain turut dilupuskan. Ini kerana liabiliti mereka adalah bersifat bersama dan tidak boleh dipecahkan. Plaintif-plaintif tidak boleh, setelah memilih untuk melepaskan salah seorang tortfeasor bersama melalui penghakiman persetujuan, mengekalkan tindakan terhadap tortfeasor bersama yang lain berdasarkan punca tindakan yang sama.
8) Tindakan plaintif-plaintif meneruskan tuntutan terhadap 2nd Defendant setelah melupuskan punca tindakan yang sama melalui penghakiman persetujuan adalah bertentangan dengan prinsip undang-undang yang mantap, termasuk res judicata, isu estoppel, serta merupakan suatu bentuk penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah (abuse of process). Plaintif-plaintif tidak boleh, setelah mengesahkan dan menerima penyelesaian penuh dan melepaskan salah satu pihak yang dikatakan berkonspirasi tetapi menuntut relief yang sama terhadap pihak lain sebagai sandaran (backup) sekiranya penyelesaian mereka dengan 1st Defendant gagal. Pendekatan ini adalah tidak adil, manipulatif, dan tidak disokong oleh undang-undang.
9) Penyelesaian plaintif-plaintif dengan 1st Defendant menunjukkan bahawa plaintif-plaintif telah memilih untuk menerima manfaat daripada penyelesaian tersebut serta mengiktiraf bahawa pertikaian substantif telah dilupuskan. Setelah plaintif-plaintif sendiri memilih untuk menamatkan dan menggugurkan punca tindakan secara keseluruhan terhadap 1st Defendant, asas untuk mengekalkan tuntutan yang sama terhadap 2nd Defendant turut hilang dan tidak lagi wujud secara undang-undang.
10) Berdasarkan keadaan tersebut, pernyataan tuntutan plaintif-plaintif kini gagal mendedahkan sebarang punca tindakan yang wajar, munasabah, atau berasaska
