Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion - Malaysian courts consistently treat tactical litigation (e.g., delayed amendments, post-judgment changes, res judicata evasion) as abuse of process, prioritizing finality, efficiency, and judicial resources; inherent power to prevent such via strike-outs or refusals, fostering responsible litigation. US cases tangential (e.g., arbitration waiver via conduct). [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRA_2010_3_MLRA_306) ["EVERISE HECTARES SDN BHD vs CITIBANK BHD - 2010 MarsdenLR 3087"] ["Kenanga Investors Bhd vs Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor - High Court"] ["AMBANK (M) BERHAD vs NEW CENTURY CONCEPTS SDN BHD & ORS"] ["BUKIT KIARA PROPERTIES SERVICES SDN BHD vs GUNALAN & ASSOCIATES - High Court"]
In the world of litigation, not every lawsuit is filed in good faith. Some parties engage in tactical litigation—strategically filing repeated suits, petitions, or applications on the same issues after prior defeats—to harass opponents, delay justice, or achieve ulterior motives. A common query from litigants and lawyers alike is: cases on tactical litigation is abuses of process. Courts worldwide, particularly in common law jurisdictions, have consistently ruled that such conduct constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, invoking doctrines like res judicata and principles of finality to strike out these claims.
This post delves into landmark cases, key principles, and practical insights, drawing from Malaysian, Indian, and related precedents. While informative, this is general information only and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Tactical litigation typically involves serial filing of suits after defeats, re-filing post-withdrawal without liberty to refile, or strike-outs for non-compliance. Courts view this as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it undermines judicial efficiency, finality in litigation, and the bona fide use of court machinery. ABDUL RAZAK DATO AS DAWOOD vs MOHAMED SIDDIQ ANWAR BATCHA - 2020 MarsdenLR 609
Key hallmarks include:- Repetition on identical facts/issues: Filing one suit after another post-defeat.- Evasion of prior rulings: Re-litigating settled matters via new suits or amendments.- Ulterior purposes: Using process for vexation, oppression, or improper ends.
As one precedent notes, the categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. LEMBAGA KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA LWN. ONG CHING MEI & SATU LAGI; YEO WEI TIEN TIMOTHY & SATU L.... - 2024 MarsdenLR 2821TAN WEI HONG & ORS vs MALAYSIA AIRLINES SYSTEM BERHAD & ORS - 2017 MarsdenLR 1053
Indian courts echo this: One of the most abuse of process of the Court is re-litigation. If the same issue is sought to be re-agitated by frivolous and vexatious suits, it is not as if the Court is powerless to stop the proceedings when it is brought to its notice. Velayutham VS Sellamuthu - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2256V. Gowrishankar VS S. Balakumar - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 87
Courts strike out claims where plaintiffs file successive suits on the same facts after losses. In a notable case, the plaintiff filed one suit after another which were based on the same facts and issues after every 'defeat'. This is obviously a scandalous, frivolous and vexatious claim. ABDUL RAZAK DATO AS DAWOOD vs MOHAMED SIDDIQ ANWAR BATCHA - 2020 MarsdenLR 609
Abuse arises when process is not being fairly or honestly used, or is employed for some ulterior or improper purpose. ABDUL RAZAK DATO AS DAWOOD vs MOHAMED SIDDIQ ANWAR BATCHA - 2020 MarsdenLR 609PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PANGSAPURI SRI IXORA vs SAMA PESONA SDN BD - 2020 MarsdenLR 1637
A second suit after withdrawing the first without liberty to refile is barred by res judicata, estoppel, and limitation, constituting abuse. MAYBAN ALLIED BHD vs KENNETH GODFREY GOMEZ & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL - 2010 MarsdenLR 958
Similarly, re-filing post-strike-out for non-compliance with discovery orders is abusive, even ignoring limitation: the court restored the strike-out due to intentional and contumelious conduct. SYED OMAR SYED MOHAMED vs PERBADANAN NASIONAL BERHAD - 2012 MarsdenLR 1862
In a director reinstatement petition repeating a prior struck-out petition (by consent, no refile liberty), res judicata barred it, stressing finality in litigation and preventing relitigation of the same facts. CHEMFERT SDN BHD & ANOR vs LIM HUA - 2010 MarsdenLR 287
Indian rulings align: Re-litigation of the same issue, already decided against a party, is an abuse of process of the Court and contrary to justice. A suit was struck off under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation and re-litigation. V. Gowrishankar VS S. Balakumar - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 87
Delayed amendments re-raising adjudicated issues signal bad faith. One application, filed 7 months 27 days after injunction dismissal, was struck under res judicata as abusive. EVERISE HECTARES SDN BHD vs CITIBANK BHD - 2010 MarsdenLR 3087
Courts demand bona fides: the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PEMBINAAN LEEPING & ORS; ZULBAHARI ABU BAKAR (THIRD PARTY) (ENCL 79) - 2021 MarsdenLR 94
In another context, repeated jurisdiction shopping is deprecated as infracting public policy against repeated litigations. O. C. Sankshema Sangham VS State of AP. , B. C. Welfare C2 Dept. - 2018 Supreme(AP) 458
Civil procedure rules, like Malaysia's Order 18 r 19(1)(d), empower summary strike-outs for abuse, interpreted widely per public policy and justice. TEAM FOUR SDN BHD vs ANG KIM CHENG @ANG TENG KOK & ORS - 2017 MarsdenLR 3021CONWELD ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ORS vs GOH SWEE BOH @ GOH CHENG KIN & ANOR - 2019 MarsdenLR 54
Abuse includes gaining unfair advantage via procedure or contempt of court authority. Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association, Rep by its General Secretary, Mr. K. K. Selvan VS Union of India, Through the Department of Health and Family Welfare - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 4480
Res judicata isn't limited to CPC Section 11; it embodies public policy against re-litigation, akin to Order II Rule 2. O. C. Sankshema Sangham VS State of AP. , B. C. Welfare C2 Dept. - 2018 Supreme(AP) 458
Exceptions exist: Categories are fact-specific, needing evidence of prejudice. Liberty to refile avoids bars, but absence triggers abuse. Limitation bolsters findings but isn't essential if non-compliance is deliberate. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PANGSAPURI SRI IXORA vs SAMA PESONA SDN BD - 2020 MarsdenLR 1637SYED OMAR SYED MOHAMED vs PERBADANAN NASIONAL BERHAD - 2012 MarsdenLR 1862
While focused on Malaysian and Indian cases, parallels appear elsewhere. US cases touch tactical delays in arbitration waivers or jurisdiction plays, but core abuse principles hold universally—courts curb sham proceedings. Eido Hussam Al-Nahhas vs 777 Partners LLC - 2025 Supreme(US)(ca7) 128Charles Curry vs Revolution Laboratories LLC - 2020 Supreme(US)(ca7) 134
In India, even under Article 227, re-litigation claims fail without proof of suppression or prior identity, but general abuse via vexatious suits is actionable. Velayutham VS Sellamuthu - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2256
To sidestep abuse findings:- Address defects: Ensure new filings fix prior issues.- Seek explicit liberty: When withdrawing, obtain refile permission.- Avoid delays/bad faith: Demonstrate genuine intent.
Defendants: Apply early under strike-out rules with evidence of repetition/ulterior motive. Courts prioritize justice over technicalities but firmly reject vexation. JAGDIS SINGH BANTA SINGH vs OUTLET RANK (M) SDN BHD - 2013 MarsdenLR 2473
References (select cases):1. Serial suits: ABDUL RAZAK DATO AS DAWOOD vs MOHAMED SIDDIQ ANWAR BATCHA - 2020 MarsdenLR 6092. Post-withdrawal: MAYBAN ALLIED BHD vs KENNETH GODFREY GOMEZ & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL - 2010 MarsdenLR 9583. Strike-out re-file: SYED OMAR SYED MOHAMED vs PERBADANAN NASIONAL BERHAD - 2012 MarsdenLR 18624. Amendments: EVERISE HECTARES SDN BHD vs CITIBANK BHD - 2010 MarsdenLR 30875. Principles: LEMBAGA KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA LWN. ONG CHING MEI & SATU LAGI; YEO WEI TIEN TIMOTHY & SATU L.... - 2024 MarsdenLR 2821MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD vs PEMBINAAN LEEPING & ORS; ZULBAHARI ABU BAKAR (THIRD PARTY) (ENCL 79) - 2021 MarsdenLR 946. Indian re-litigation: V. Gowrishankar VS S. Balakumar - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 87O. C. Sankshema Sangham VS State of AP. , B. C. Welfare C2 Dept. - 2018 Supreme(AP) 458
Stay vigilant against tactical foes, but wield litigation ethically. For tailored advice, engage legal experts.
#AbuseOfProcess #TacticalLitigation #ResJudicata
[38] Tactical manoeuvrings were frowned upon by the courts in the following cases. ... Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. ... It seems to me that this is a tactical manoeuvre amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court and should be disallowed: ; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 606; [1988] 2 CLJ 632; [1988] 3 MLJ 348. ... of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. ... to....
Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. ... It seems to me that this is a tactical manoeuvre amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court and should be disallowed: Ismail bin Ibrahim & Ors v. Sum Poh Development Sdn Bhd & Anor, [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 606. ... [38] Tactical manoeuvrings were frowned upon by the courts in the following cases. [39] In Tetuan Tanjung Teras & Ors v. ... The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases#HL_....
That, they argue, would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... The district court refused, finding that the defend- ants had waived their right to compel arbitration by partici- pating in litigation. 777 Partners, LLC, and Tactical Marketing Partners, LLC now appeal. ... The complaint contained an additional count against 777 Partners and Tactical Marketing Partners for violating the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Or- ganizations Act. For fourteen months, the litigation....
That, they argue, would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... The district court refused, finding that the defend- ants had waived their right to compel arbitration by partici- pating in litigation. 777 Partners, LLC, and Tactical Marketing Partners, LLC now appeal. ... The complaint contained an additional count against 777 Partners and Tactical Marketing Partners for violating the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Or- ganizations Act. For fourteen months, the litigation....
The defendant’s activity in the state is the very activity that allegedly caused the confusion at the heart of this litigation. Advanced Tactical cannot be read as requiring, at this stage of the litigation, anything more. ... Curry can prove these allegations at trial is not the issue at this stage of the litigation. ... “[W]e think that the traditional due process inquiry … is not so difficult to apply to cases involving Internet contacts that courts need ... ( … continued) wi....
The defendant’s activity in the state is the very activity that allegedly caused the confusion at the heart of this litigation. Advanced Tactical cannot be read as requiring, at this stage of the litigation, anything more. ... Curry can prove these allegations at trial is not the issue at this stage of the litigation. ... “[W]e think that the traditional due process inquiry … is not so difficult to apply to cases involving Internet contacts that courts need ... ( … continued) wi....
They are frequently reminding us that “justice delayed is justice denied” but on account of massive litigation exodus, Courts are under mounting pressure of huge number of cases, pending. Lack of infrastructure and other supporting establishment, is another hurdle in speedy disposal of cases. ... There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if learned Counsel who are officers of the Court and who are expected to assist the Court tender prope....
The amendments were filed after substantial delay, are not bona fide, and constitute a tactical manoeuvre and abuse of process. ... The action had progressed significantly beyond the stage where amendments can be made as of right or without serious disruption to the litigation process. ... The application constitutes a tactical manoeuvre and is not bona fide. ... This demonstrates a lack of bona fides and a tactical manoeuvre to delay the proceedings. ... As noted in Anthony Wee Soon K....
The amendments were filed after substantial delay, are not bona fide, and constitute a tactical manoeuvre and abuse of process. ... The application constitutes a tactical manoeuvre and is not bona fide. ... This demonstrates a lack of bona fides and a tactical manoeuvre to delay the proceedings. ... The action had progressed significantly beyond the stage where amendments can be made as of right or without serious disruption to the litigation process. [83] I am guided by the High court....
The action had progressed significantly beyond the stage where amendments can be made as of right or without serious disruption to the litigation process. ... It represents a fundamental disruption to the orderly conduct of litigation. ... The Defendants have demonstrated indolence rather than vigilance in the conduct of this litigation. ... The application is not bona fide but rather constitutes a tactical manoeuvre. The prejudice to the opposing parties cannot be compensated by costs. ... [102]Fifth,....
If the same issue is sought to be re- agitated by frivolous and vexatious suits, it is not as if the Court is powerless to stop the proceedings when it is brought to its notice. It is an abuse of process of the Court and contrary to justice to re-litigate the same issue, which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. One of the most abuse of process of the Court is re-litigation.
One of the most abuse of process of the Court is re-litigation. If the same issue is sought to be re-agitated by frivolous and vexatious suits, it is not as if the Court is powerless to stop the proceedings when it is brought to its notice. It is an abuse of process of the Court and contrary to justice to re-litigate the same issue, which has already been tried and decided earlier against him.
It is an abuse of process of the Court and contrary to justice to re-litigate the same issue, which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. If the same issue is sought to be re-agitated by frivolous and vexatious suits, it is not as if the Court is powerless to stop the proceedings when it is brought to its notice, O.S. 2473/1996 is sheer abuse of process of the Court re-agitating the same issue, in my view, should not be allowed to continue." One of the most abuse of process of the Court is re-litigation.
A party to a litigation is said to be guilty of abuse of process of the Court any of the following cases :- (1) Gaining an unfair advantage by the use of a rule of procedure. (2) Contempt of the authority of the Court by a party or stranger. Of course, for the term 'abuse of the process of the Court' the Code of Civil Procedure has not given any definition.
The re-agitation need not necessarily be barred as res judicata. If the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Such repeated litigations or re-litigations are abuses of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy. 6. Repeated scouting of jurisdictions has been deprecated time and again, not merely on the basis of any statutory rule of procedure or practice, but also because such invocation of jurisdictions infracts sound and well settled principles founded on public policy.
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
