The enforceability of consent judgments extends to non-parties who are beneficiaries, signifying their standing to sue.

[1] The Plaintiffs and the Defendant in the Suit herein are all siblings.

[2] The claim of the Plaintiffs here is based on a consent judgment dated 31 January 2013 in another case (Johor Bahru Suit No. 23NCVC-125-08/2012) ("the Other Suit") between Tan Poh Ning, as plaintiff, and Gan Thay Liong & 4 others, as defendants.

[3] Tan Poh Ning, who is now deceased, is the mother to all the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in the Suit herein.

[4] Although none of the Plaintiffs or the Defendant herein was a party in the Other Suit, it was recorded as a consent judgment, pursuant to a settlement therein, that Tan Poh Ning would transfer her 2/3rd share in a parcel of land of approximately 48 hectares known as GRN 50215 Lot 3004 Mukim Paloh, Daerah Kluang, Johor ("the Subject Land") to each of her children, except for Gan Thay Liong, in equal shares.

[5] It later transpired that before she had passed away, Tan Poh Ning had transferred the Subject Land only to the Defendant herein, and not the others named in the consent judgment.

[6] In a 6-paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs have pleaded that the consent judgment in the Other Suit had ordered Tan Poh Ning to transfer the Subject Land in the manner stipulated therein and not to the Defendant alone, and hence they are now suing the Defendant to do just that, which is, to transfer to the Plaintiffs their respective portions of the Subject Land.

[7] In response, the Defendant had filed a comprehensive 46-paragraph Defence which had alluded to the history/background of the Subject Land in 1974 through the consent judgment, and that a family discussion had been held in 2013 by Tan Poh Ning during which some of her children had allegedly agreed to relinquish their portions of the Subject Land, and some had not.

[8] Arising from such partial relinquishment, the consent judgment was contended to be no longer enforceable.

[9] It was further pleaded in the Defence that around 09 February 2015, the Subject Land was transferred to the Defendant without any objection.

[10] The Defence also stated that the Plaintiffs did not have locus standi, and had waived their rights and/or that laches had set in.

[11] A Reply was then filed by the Plaintiffs which brought up issues of trusts and fraud.

[12] By way of brief chronology, this case had initially been filed in Muar High Court vide Suit No. 22NCVC-44-06/2016 on 11 August 2016.

[13] The Defendant had firstly, filed an application under Enclosure 11 dated 22 September 2016 to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim.

[14] Secondly, an application was filed by the Defendant to transfer the case from Muar to Johor Bahru, which was achieved by a consent Order dated 02 November 2016. A new case number of JA-22NCVC-12-01/2017 was assigned for this case.

[15] Another application was then filed by the Defendant under Enclosure 27 to strike out the Plaintiffs' Reply filed on the 6 October 2016, which Reply although filed within time (the due date being 13 October 2016) had been served out of time by 6 days on the 19 October 2016.

[16] Alternatively, to expunge paragraphs 5, 6 and 12 in the Reply on the issue of fraud.

[17] The Plaintiffs then filed an application under E