SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 MarsdenLR 1352

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK BINTULU
CHIN WEE MING – Appellant
Versus
WONG PAK HOCK – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BTU-22NCVC-12-7-2017]



Petitioner Advocates:Tai Choi Yu ,Respondent Advocate: Eric Lau

The elements of the tort of abuse of process require proof of improper purpose beyond just initiating claims, which was not established.

Headnote:The court analyzed a Notice of Application concerning claims of abuse of process and libel in Bankruptcy Proceedings. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's actions constituted an abuse of process without proper legal basis. The court found no sufficient grounds for establishing claims of abuse, concluding that the plaintiff had not proven required elements, leading to dismissal of the application. The issues revolved around the nature of bankruptcy claims and allegations of malicious intent, leading to a determination against the plaintiff's request for summary judgment.

Table of Content
1. initial claims and grounds for application. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 7)
2. application for summary judgment regarding bankruptcy proceedings and claims. (Para 2)
3. defendant's arguments against the plaintiff's claims. (Para 6)
[1] Enclosure 9 is a Notice of Application filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:

(1) That Summary Judgment be entered against the defendant as pleaded by the plaintiff in his Statement of Claim for abuse of process therein;

(2) That the plaintiff's claim for libel as pleaded in his Statement of Claim be determined by the court under O 14A of the Rules of 2012 on point of law based on the publication of the Bankruptcy Proceedings No MYY-29NCC-76-4-2017 and/or Bankruptcy Proceedings No MYY-29NCC-193-7-2017 (collectively "the Two Bankruptcy Proceedings") and the Bankruptcy Notice issued therein;

(3) Alternatively that a separate hearing or trial be ordered for the plaintiff's claim for libel in accordance with O 15 r 5 of the Rules of 2012;

(4) That general damages be assessed by the court with such directions thereto as the court deems just;

(5) That the special damages of RM35,000.00 be ordered to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as pleaded with such directions thereto as the court deems just; and

(6) Such other reliefs as the court deems just; and

(7) Costs.

[2] The grounds for the above application are stated in the affidavit-in-support of Chin Wee Ming affirmed on 28 September 2017 and filed herein. They are as follows:

(1) The defendant has no defence at all to the plaintiff's claims;

(2) The defendant was fully aware and had full knowledge that he did not satisfy the minimum threshold of RM30,000.00 to commence and to institute the Two Bankruptcy Proceedings against the plaintiff;

(3) The defendant's Bankruptcy Proceedings No MYY-29NCC- 76-4-2017 was frivolous, vexatious and scandalous and was maliciously filed by the defendant;

(4) The defendant's Bankruptcy Proceedings No MYY-29NCC- 76-4-2017 was subsequently withdrawn and discontinued as shown in the court order therein in encl 21 which as marked as exh "A" in encl 10.

(5) The defendant's Bankruptcy Proceedings No MYY-29NCC- 1937-2017 filed into court was not served on the plaintiff as stated in para 4 of the plaintiff's affidavit-in-reply (encl 17) perhaps on belated realisation that the said Bankruptcy Proceedings No MYY-29NCC-193-7-2017 is unlawful.

[3] The affidavits that have been filed in this application are as follows:

(1) The plaintiff's affidavit-in-support (encl 10);

(2) The plaintiff's affidavit-in-reply (encl 17);

(3) The plaintiff's affidavit-in-support No 2 for encl 9 (encl 18); and

(4) The defendant's affidavit-in-opposition (encl 14).

The Plaintiff's Case

[4] The plaintiff contended that from the pleadings and the affidavit evidence before this court, it is clear that the defendant had abused the court process in commencing and instituting the two Bankruptcy Proceedings against the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the two Bankruptcy Proceedings were malicious and made in bad faith.

[5] The plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the tort of Abuse of Power is also closely interwoven with the plaintiff's claim for defamation/libel as both claims arose from the same facts and circumstances of mala fide and malicious commencement and institution of the aforesaid two (2) Bankruptcy Proceedings.

[6] In the premises, the plaintiff contended that as the defendant has no defence at all the plaintiff urges this court to grant an Order in terms or alternatively for a separate O 14A hearing or a separate trial for defamation/libel.

The Plaintiff's Statement Of Claim

[7] In order to appreciate the plaintiff's pleaded case better, this court shall reproduce pertinent portion of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim as follows:

"STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. ...

2. ...

3. The defendant through his Advocates, Messrs David Allen Sagah & Teng Advocates on the 12 May 2017 informed and notified the plaintiff that the defendant had commenced Bankruptcy P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top