Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
EVERISE HECTARES SDN BHD vs CITIBANK BHD - 2010 MarsdenLR 3087
"]Kenanga Investors Bhd vs Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor - High Court
"] ["KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD vs ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD & ANOR - High Court
"] ["- High Court
"] ["- High Court
"]AMBANK (M) BERHAD vs NEW CENTURY CONCEPTS SDN BHD & ORS
"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2011_3_MLRH_701) ["AMBANK (M) BERHAD vs NEW CENTURY CONCEPTS SDN BHD & ORS - High Court
"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_2011_4444)BUKIT KIARA PROPERTIES SERVICES SDN BHD vs GUNALAN & ASSOCIATES - High Court
"] ["BUKIT KIARA PROPERTIES SERVICES SDN BHD vs GUNALAN & ASSOCIATES; VERVE SUITES MONT KIARA MANAGEMENT.... - High Court
"]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 —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 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 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.
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 , , vexatious, and an because it undermines judicial efficiency, finality in litigation, and the use of court machinery.
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 , vexatious or an are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances.
Indian courts echo this: One of the most of the Court is . If the same issue is sought to be re-agitated by and vexatious suits, it is not as if the Court is powerless to stop the proceedings when it is brought to its notice. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2256 2021 0 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 , and vexatious claim.
Abuse arises when process is not being fairly or honestly used, or is employed for some ulterior or improper purpose.
A second suit after withdrawing the first without liberty to refile is barred by , , and , constituting abuse.
Similarly, re-filing post-strike-out for non-compliance with discovery orders is abusive, even ignoring : the court restored the strike-out due to intentional and .
In a director reinstatement petition repeating a prior struck-out petition (by consent, no refile liberty), barred it, stressing finality in litigation and preventing relitigation of the same facts.
Indian rulings align: of the same issue, already decided against a party, is an of the Court and contrary to justice. A suit was struck off under as barred by and . 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 87
Delayed amendments re-raising adjudicated issues signal bad faith. One application, filed after injunction dismissal, was struck under as abusive.
Courts demand bona fides: the process of the court must be used and properly and must not be abused.
In another context, repeated is deprecated as infracting public policy against repeated litigations. 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 458
Civil procedure rules, like Malaysia's , empower for abuse, interpreted widely per public policy and justice.
Abuse includes gaining unfair advantage via procedure or authority. 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4480
isn't limited to CPC ; it embodies public policy against , akin to . 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 458
Exceptions exist: Categories are fact-specific, needing evidence of prejudice. Liberty to refile avoids bars, but absence triggers abuse. bolsters findings but isn't essential if non-compliance is deliberate.
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. 2025 Supreme(US)(ca7) 128 2020 Supreme(US)(ca7) 134
In India, even under , claims fail without proof of suppression or prior identity, but general abuse via vexatious suits is actionable. 2021 0 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.
References (select cases):1. Serial suits:
2. Post-withdrawal:
3. Strike-out re-file:
4. Amendments:
5. Principles:
6. Indian : 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 87 2018 0 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
