Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Court's Power to Strike Out Claims - Courts have the authority to strike out a claim either on their own motion or upon application by a party, especially in cases of procedural non-compliance, abuse of process, or when claims are frivolous or vexatious ["NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD vs DATO SRI SURESH EMMANUEL ABISHEGAM & ORS - High Court"], ["MUHAMMAD AMMAR HARON vs SHARIFAH ZAHIDAH SYED NOOH & ORS - High Court"], ["NADARAJAH LINGAM SINNADURAI & ORS vs DATO SRI DR SURESH RAJ LACHMANAN & ORS - High Court"].
Timing and Procedure - There is generally no specific time limit within which a court can strike out a claim; courts may exercise this power at various stages, including pre-trial case management or during trial, depending on circumstances ["NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD vs DATO SRI SURESH EMMANUEL ABISHEGAM & ORS - High Court"], ["MUHAMMAD AMMAR HARON vs SHARIFAH ZAHIDAH SYED NOOH & ORS - High Court"], ["NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD vs DATO SRI SURESH EMMANUEL ABISHEGAM & ORS - High Court"]. Orders to strike out may be made without liberty to refile, and such orders can be challenged or set aside upon application ["MUHAMMAD AMMAR HARON vs SHARIFAH ZAHIDAH SYED NOOH & ORS - High Court"].
Grounds for Striking Out - Courts may strike out claims if they are deemed unsustainable on their face, frivolous, an abuse of process, or if the claimant fails to comply with procedural directions or orders, such as failing to obey pre-trial directives ["MUHAMMAD AMMAR HARON vs SHARIFAH ZAHIDAH SYED NOOH & ORS - High Court"], ["SAMA ASSAVAAKUL vs CHOO KAH HOE & ANOR - High Court"], ["HONG SHENG ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs MULTILINK RESOURCES SDN BHD - High Court"], ["ELANG WAH SDN BHD vs PERBADANAN PEMBANGUNAN PULAU PINANG - High Court"].
Court's Discretion - The exercise of the court's discretion to strike out claims depends on whether the claim is clearly unsustainable or abusive, and courts are cautious to ensure that striking out does not deprive parties of their right to a fair hearing ["HONG SHENG ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs MULTILINK RESOURCES SDN BHD - High Court"], ["ELANG WAH SDN BHD vs PERBADANAN PEMBANGUNAN PULAU PINANG - High Court"].
Impact of Dismissals and Strikes - Dismissals for failure to state a claim or procedural non-compliance, especially when done without prejudice or with liberty to refile, can count as a strike, which may have implications for future proceedings or appeals ["Quintez Talley vs John E. Wetzel - Third Circuit"], ["Lomax"], ["Thomas"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts indeed have the power to strike out a claim on their own motion, particularly in cases of procedural default, abuse of process, or when claims are frivolous or vexatious. This power is exercised to promote procedural discipline and efficiency within civil litigation, and it can be invoked at various stages of proceedings. However, courts must exercise this discretion judiciously, ensuring that claims are not struck out prematurely or unjustly, and that parties have opportunities to respond or set aside such orders if appropriate ["NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD vs DATO SRI SURESH EMMANUEL ABISHEGAM & ORS - High Court"], ["MUHAMMAD AMMAR HARON vs SHARIFAH ZAHIDAH SYED NOOH & ORS - High Court"].
In the realm of civil litigation, parties often wonder about the extent of a court's powers. A common question arises: can a court strike out a claim on its own motion? This refers to a court's ability to dismiss or strike out a claim sua sponte—Latin for of its own accord—without a formal application from any party. Understanding this power is crucial for litigants to navigate procedural pitfalls and ensure their cases withstand judicial scrutiny.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, primarily under Malaysian Rules of Court (ROC), drawing from key judgments. While courts generally possess this authority, it is exercised judiciously to uphold fairness. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Courts in Malaysia have inherent powers to manage proceedings efficiently, including dismissing claims on their own initiative. This is explicitly recognized in the ROC. For example, Order 18 Rule 19 allows courts to strike out pleadings that are scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise unsustainable, either on application or on its own motionPOEY YEE MENG & ORS vs TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1681.
The court in POEY YEE MENG & ORS vs TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1681 clarified: Apart from O 34 r 1, a case can be struck out by the Court on its own motion under O 18 r 19 of the Rules. This provision does not state that the Court can strike out a pleading only on application of a party. In fact, in the manner the provision is worded implies the Court can on its own motion strike out the pleadings.
Similarly, Order 34 Rule 2(3) empowers courts during pre-trial case management to strike out claims for non-compliance with directions, either on its own motion or upon applicationNADARAJAH LINGAM SINNADURAI & ORS vs DATO SRI DR SURESH RAJ LACHMANAN & ORSVOLTAN INSTALLATION & SERVICES AND ORS vs MOHD KAMARUZZAMAN GHANI. This provision states: The Court, having given directions under r 2(2) or r 3 may either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, if any party defaults in complying with any such directions, dismiss such action, strike out the defence or counterclaim or make such other order as it thinks fit. VOLTAN INSTALLATION & SERVICES AND ORS vs MOHD KAMARUZZAMAN GHANI
These rules underscore that courts are not passive arbiters but active managers of justice.
Sua sponte dismissals are not whimsical. They require clear justification:
The court in YORK (M) SALES & SERVICES SDN BHD vs MEGA AIR CONDITIONING SDN BHD & ANOR - 2010 MarsdenLR 2157 emphasized: A court may only summarily dismiss a claim if it is 'obviously unsustainable'; substantive issues warranting full trial cannot be dismissed as frivolous.
However, limitations exist. Claims cannot be struck out solely on limitation grounds without allowing the plaintiff to demonstrate exceptions under the Limitation Act 1953. Full trial may be needed PERWIRA AFFIN BANK BHD vs AHMAD BIN ABDUL RAHMAN. As noted: A claim cannot be struck out solely on limitation grounds without allowing the plaintiff to demonstrate exceptions to the statute; full examination at trial is necessary.
While empowered, courts exercise this authority with caution, guided by natural justice and procedural fairness:
In VOLTAN INSTALLATION & SERVICES AND ORS vs MOHD KAMARUZZAMAN GHANI, the High Court ruled: The Sessions Court Judge improperly struck out the claim as counsel's absence did not justify dismissal, and the 'unless order' lacked clarity. It stressed: The SCJ wrongly assumed no party was present when a Plaintiff's representative was in attendance, constituting a misapprehension of facts.
Appeals often succeed if discretion is not exercised properly, remitting cases for trial VOLTAN INSTALLATION & SERVICES AND ORS vs MOHD KAMARUZZAMAN GHANI.
Several judgments affirm this practice:
Conversely, overreach is checked. In construction disputes, striking out without clear 'unless orders' was deemed a misuse VOLTAN INSTALLATION & SERVICES AND ORS vs MOHD KAMARUZZAMAN GHANI.
To avoid sua sponte dismissal:1. Plead robustly: Substantiate claims with facts to evade frivolous labels.2. Comply with directions: Attend hearings; clarify 'unless orders'.3. Address limitations early: Anticipate defenses.4. Seek reinstatement promptly: If struck out, apply to set aside before reinstatement NADARAJAH LINGAM SINNADURAI & ORS vs DATO SRI DR SURESH RAJ LACHMANAN & ORS.
Courts should wield this power sparingly, prioritizing access to justice.
Yes, Malaysian courts can strike out a claim on their own motion, as affirmed by ROC provisions like Order 18 r 19 and Order 34 r 2(3), but only in clear cases of frivolity, vexatiousness, or default, with discretion tempered by fairness POEY YEE MENG & ORS vs TROPIKA ISTIMEWA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1681YORK (M) SALES & SERVICES SDN BHD vs MEGA AIR CONDITIONING SDN BHD & ANOR - 2010 MarsdenLR 2157. This balances efficiency and equity.
Key Takeaways:- Courts act sua sponte judiciously.- Grounds: Frivolous claims, non-compliance.- Limits: No sole reliance on limitations; ensure hearings.- Always comply with ROC to safeguard your case.
For tailored advice, engage legal professionals. Stay informed on procedural rules to strengthen your litigation strategy.
#CourtDismissal, #SuaSponte, #MalaysiaLaw
[13] I therefore strike out the Notice of Motion without liberty to file afresh. This matter has been set down for trial and will be dealt with appropriately at the said juncture. ... If reasonable timely justice remains a goal of our public Court system judges of our Court hearing civil matters lack of the resources to spend much time on other civil matters, especially the unreasonable high number of process related interlocutory motion which our civil ... JUDGMENT Indera Mohd Arief Emran Arifin ....
on the Court the power to, inter alia, strike out a party's claim either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, in the event that such party defaults in complying with any order and/or directive issued by the Court under the said O 34 r 2(2). ... in nature as O 34 r (3) of the ROC confers on the Court the power to, inter alia, strike out a party's claim either on its own motion or upon the application of any p....
If reasonable timely justice remains a goal of our public Court system judges of our Court hearing civil matters lack of the resources to spend much time on other civil matters, especially the unreasonable high number of process related interlocutory motion which ... JUDGMENT Mohd Arief Emran Arifin J: (Enclosure 67) [1] The Appellants, the 1st and the 9th Defendants, have sought to strike out the Plaintiff's / Respondent's claim on the grounds that: (i) Timor has no capacity to act in a derivative ... ....
ROC confers on the Court the power to, inter alia, strike out a party's claim either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, in the event that such party defaults in complying with any order and/or directive issued by the b ... or strike out the defence or counterclaim or enter judgment or make such order as it thinks fit. ... ROC 2012 stipulate as follows: ROC 2012, the Order of this Court that struck out the Plaintiffs' claim, may be set aside on....
during pre-trial case management are peremptory in nature as O 34 r (3) of the ROC confers on the Court the power to, inter alia, strike out a party's claim either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, in the event that such party defaults in complying ... Instead, the Plaintiffs applied to reinstate the action without first applying to set aside the Court 's Order that struck out the Plaintiffs' claim. ... [9] Subsequently on 25 April 2024, following the Plainti....
v Milton were somewhat too wide, and where the Court of Appeal held that the statement of claim should be struck out, one of the reasons being, as stated in the headnote, that: (ii) it was open to the court to strike out a statement of claim as disclosing ... It must be appreciated, however, that in that case the application to strike out was not only on the ground that the statement of claim disclosedno reasonable cause of action but also on the ground that it was ....
This was especially so when the SCJ was functus officio upon pronouncement of the final judgment i.e to strike out P's claim. ... on 9 October 2023 in striking out the Plaintiffs' claim with cost. ... order made or direction given by the Court under paragraph (1), the Court may dismiss the action,strike out the defence or counterclaim or make such other order as it thinks fit. ... ROC 2012 is reproduced here: (3) The Court, having given directions under r 2(2) or r ....
Judge (SCJ) made on 9 October 2023 in striking out the Plaintiffs' claim with cost. ... ROC 2012 is reproduced here: (3) The Court, having given directions under r 2(2) or r 3 may either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, if any party defaults in complying with any such directions, dismiss such
has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant... ... of a claim, to which the application relates that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial of that claim or part, the Court may give such judgm....
But when a court dismisses a claim using two equally sufficient rationales, one of which is strike- qualifying, that claim has been dismissed on a strike-qualifying ground and its dismissal counts toward a strike. ... The parties agree that the District Court dismissed the sole federal claim for failure to state a claim, which is indisputably a strike-qualifying ground. However, as relevant here, the Cour....
It was further held that the right to compensation cannot be read into Schedule VII List III, Entry 42 which is not ambiguous at all. This Court also considered distinction between no compensation and nil compensation and pointed out onus to establish validity of law in such cases lies on the State. The statutes depriving a person of his property are subject to judicial review by constitutional courts on the grounds laid down by this Court. Court cannot however based merely on its own opinion, strike down such a law or statutory provision. Court cannot however bas....
The election petitioner, with the help of the presently made miscellaneous application, invites this court to apply to the present case the provisions of order VI, rule 16 for the purpose of striking out the pleadings leading thereby to the rejection of the election petition itself in exercise of this court's power under order VII, rule 11. Whether court, on its own motion, strike out pleading?
The election petitioner, with the help of the presently made miscellaneous application, invites this Court to apply to the present case the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 for the purpose of striking out the pleadings leading thereby to the rejection of the Election Petition itself in exercise of this Court's power under Order VII Rule 11. WHETHER COURT, ON ITS OWN MOTION, STRIKE OUT PLEADING?
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
