1. ) BHAVANASH SHARMA A/L GURCHAN SINGH SHARMA 2. ) JASMINDER KAUR CHAHAL v AIA BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the reluctance to strike out an entire statement of claim for a localised deficiency in further and better particulars directed at a single paragraph — a defect ordinarily met by a further order for particulars rather than dismissal — and the constraints on appealing such interlocutory case-management decisions under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Judicial Commissioner Elaine Yap Chin Gaik, concerns the competence of an appeal against a Sessions Court's refusal to strike out a claim, and the limits on appellate jurisdiction under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. In the underlying Sessions Court suit the respondent, AIA Bhd (formerly American International Assurance Bhd), was the plaintiff, and the appellants were the defendants. The defendants had applied to strike out the entire statement of claim on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to furnish further and better particulars, as ordered, in respect of a single paragraph of the statement of claim, and that the particulars eventually furnished were inadequate. The Sessions Court dismissed that striking-out application, and the defendants appealed. A threshold question was whether the appeal was competent, given section 28(1)(c) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, or whether it ought to be dismissed in limine.

The court dismissed the appeal. It examined the appellants' complaint that the plaintiff had defaulted in furnishing adequate further and better particulars for one paragraph of the statement of claim, and was not persuaded that the alleged inadequacy justified the drastic step of striking out the entire action; a failure or deficiency in particulars directed at a single paragraph does not ordinarily warrant striking out the whole claim, particularly where the defect can be addressed by a further order for particulars rather than by dismissal. Having regard to the limited scope for appellate interference with such an interlocutory case-management decision, the court found no basis to disturb the Sessions Court's exercise of discretion. It accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000 and affirmed the Sessions Court's decision dismissing the striking-out application. The judgment is a useful illustration of the reluctance to strike out an entire claim for a localised deficiency in particulars, and of the constraints on appeals from interlocutory orders under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.