1. ) MT VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES SDN BHD v QM PRINT SDN BHD AMICUS CURIE 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) Tetuan Malis & Khoo

02i-6-03-2024w Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 8 September 2025 • 02(i)-6-03/2024(W) • 112 min read
46 cases cited (2 SG, 44 foreign)

Catchwords

right to appeal dismissal of interlocutory application to strike out pleadings Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 when the right to appeal vests whether the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is retrospective legislative intention behind the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 writ filed before 1 October 2022 striking out application filed before 1 October 2022 preliminary objection non-appealable decision pursuant to section 68(1)(f) of the CJA purposive approach to statutory interpretation statutory purposive approach section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 harmonious statutory interpretation state of the law prior to the amendment to section 68 position in law post-amendment of section 68 section 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 definition of the word 'decision' legislative intention behind the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Bill 1998 the general purpose of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 phrase ‘finally disposes of the rights of the parties’ test of finality definition of the word ‘ruling’ meaning of the phrase 'in the course of' contextual interpretation what constitutes a right of a party in litigation and how it is affected

Practice Areas

right to appeal dismissal of interlocutory application to strike out pleadings Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 when the right to appeal vests whether the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is retrospective legislative intention behind the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 writ filed before 1 October 2022 striking out application filed before 1 October 2022 preliminary objection non-appealable decision pursuant to section 68(1)(f) of the CJA purposive approach to statutory interpretation statutory purposive approach section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 harmonious statutory interpretation state of the law prior to the amendment to section 68 position in law post-amendment of section 68 section 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 definition of the word 'decision' legislative intention behind the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Bill 1998 the general purpose of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 phrase ‘finally disposes of the rights of the parties’ test of finality definition of the word ‘ruling’ meaning of the phrase 'in the course of' contextual interpretation what constitutes a right of a party in litigation and how it is affected

Judges (3)

Hanipah binti Farikullah Coram Nallini Pathmanathan Delivered Rhodzariah binti Bujang Coram

Parties (5)

Jabatan Peguam Negara Amicus Curiae MT VENTURES Sdn Bhd Appellant MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES Sdn Bhd Appellant QM PRINT Sdn Bhd Respondent Tetuan Malis & Khoo Amicus Curiae

Case Significance

1. ) MT VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES SDN BHD v QM PRINT SDN ... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated September 8, 2025 (citation: 02i-6-03-2024w). <p>MT Ventures and Multi Top Auto Supplies appealed the dismissal of their striking-out application, raising the issue of whether the right to appeal such a dismissal was removed by amendments to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The Federal Court held that where a striking-out application raises a true jurisdictional objection, the dismissal finally disposes of the defendant's rights and is therefore appealable. The appeals were reinstated for hearing before the Court of Appeal.< The panel comprised Hanipah binti Farikullah, Nallini Pathmanathan and Rhodzariah binti Bujang, with Nallini Pathmanathan delivering the judgment.

Summary

MT Ventures and Multi Top Auto Supplies appealed the dismissal of their striking-out application, raising the issue of whether the right to appeal such a dismissal was removed by amendments to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The Federal Court held that where a striking-out application raises a true jurisdictional objection, the dismissal finally disposes of the defendant's rights and is therefore appealable. The appeals were reinstated for hearing before the Court of Appeal.

What was the outcome of 1. ) MT VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES SDN BHD v QM PRINT SDN ...?

<p>MT Ventures and Multi Top Auto Supplies appealed the dismissal of their striking-out application, raising the issue of whether the right to appeal ...

Statutes Cited

Amending Act
s 17
Civil Law Act 1956
s 4(3)
Courts of Judicature Act 1964
s 68
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
s 68
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
s 51
Interpretation Act
s 17A s 9A
Rules of Court 2012
Singaporean Interpretation Act
s 9A(1)

Cases Cited (46)

SG (1)
[2024] SGCA 14
SLR (1)
[1999] 2 SLR 1
UK (11)
[1903] 1 KB 547 [1905] AC 36 [1905] AC 369 [1966] 2 All ER 536 [1981] 3 All ER 727 [1994] 1 All ER 20 [2003] 4 All ER 97 [2018] 1 WLR 2431 [2022] UKSC 3 [2023] UKSC 28 [2024] UKPC 19
MY (27)
[1979] 2 MLJ 121 [1982] 2 MLJ 37 [1983] 1 MLJ 1 [1991] 1 MLJ 498 [1995] 3 MLJ 189 [1996] 1 MLJ 1 [2002] 2 MLJ 11 [2002] 2 MLJ 673 [2003] 4 MLJ 9 [2005] 3 MLJ 97 [2006] 1 MLJ 339 [2006] 6 MLJ 97 [2008] 3 MLJ 753 [2010] 2 MLJ 312 [2014] 2 MLJ 749 [2014] 3 MLJ 672 [2014] 4 MLJ 85 [2016] 4 MLJ 100 [2019] 4 MLJ 614 [2019] MLJU 1212 [2020] 2 MLJ 1 [2021] 1 MLJ 180 [2021] MLJU 943 [2022] 3 MLJ 450 [2022] MLJU 830 [2024] MLJU 3015 [2025] MLJU 575
IN (6)
(1981) 4 SCC 8 AIR 1953 SC 221 AIR 1957 SC 540 AIR 1960 SC 980 AIR 1965 SC 703 AIR 1975 SC 1843