Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1150
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]
A full and final settlement or release granted to one joint tortfeasor extinguishes the indivisible cause of action against all other joint tortfeasors. Consequently, remaining claims against other parties based on the same conspiracy or joint wrongdoing are unsustainable and constitute an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) - Striking out of pleadings - Principle of joint tortfeasors - Accord and satisfaction - Consent judgment effect on joint tortfeasors - The law pertaining to striking out under Order 18 Rule 19 is that the court should only adopt this summary process where it can be clearly seen that a claim is on its face obviously unsustainable. (Paras 4-7)
(B) Joint Tortfeasorship - Release of one joint tortfeasor operates as a discharge of the other - Under common law, a release granted to one joint tortfeasor or debtor operates as a discharge of others as the cause of action is one and indivisible. (Paras 18-20)
(C) Abuse of Process - Attempting to retain a defendant as a 'contingency defendant' after settling with a primary party is impermissible. (Paras 16-17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs moved against the defendants for conspiracy, alleging joint wrongdoing. Subsequently, the plaintiffs entered into a consent judgment with one of the defendants to settle the claims, which included an admission of liability by that defendant. Following this, the remaining defendant filed an application to strike out the claim, arguing that the release of the first defendant extinguished the cause of action against the remaining defendant, rendering the suit against them unsustainable and an abuse of process.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the plaintiffs had entered into a full and final settlement that extinguished the indivisible cause of action. The attempt to keep the second defendant as a backup for potential recovery failure was deemed legally impermissible.
Issues: Whether the entry of a consent judgment with one joint tortfeasor effectively extinguishes the cause of action against the remaining joint tortfeasor and whether maintaining that action constitutes an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an action is based on a joint and indivisible cause of action, such as a conspiracy involving multiple parties, the release and settlement with one party operates by operation of law as a discharge of all other concurrent tortfeasors. Once the cause of action is extinguished through accord and satisfaction, the remaining claims become legally unsustainable and constitute an abuse of process.
Result: Striking out application allowed with costs awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the defendant's striking out application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural standards for summary disposal of pleadings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal effect of a consent judgment on joint tortfeasors. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. application of the release rule established in duck v. mayeu. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. the impossibility of maintaining a conspiracy claim against a single defendant following a release. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. rejection of the argument that rights to sue can be contractually preserved post-release. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 7. final order granting the striking out application with costs. (Para 50) |
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 encl 55
[3] The grounds for striking out, as stated in encl 55, read:
"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 (backu
