1. ) LIM JOO SWEE 2. ) LEONG ENG KEONG 3. ) CHONG BOON KIONG 4. ) Cheah Kim Looi (Menyaman untuk dan bagi pihak kesemua 99 tuan punya dan pemilik Selangor Polo Residency dan ahli-ahli Persatuan Penduduk dan Pemilik Pusat Polo & Ekuestrian Selangor, Kota Damansara) v 1. ) Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS) 2. ) SELANGOR POLO SDN. BHD. 3. ) SELANGOR COUNTRY CLUB SDN. BHD. 4. ) MAYANG TIASA SDN. BHD. 5. ) DATUK BANDAR MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of res judicata to strike out a fresh action that re-agitates matters already adjudicated at an Appeal Board hearing and in earlier judicial review, and confirms that pleading the limbs of Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 cumulatively does not render a striking-out application void.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Judge Jamhirah Ali, concerns applications by multiple defendants to strike out a representative civil action, and the operation of res judicata where a fresh suit revisits matters already adjudicated. The plaintiffs, individuals suing for and on behalf of the proprietors of a residential development and the members of a residents' and owners' association, brought proceedings against a group of defendants that included Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor, Selangor Polo Sdn Bhd, Selangor Country Club Sdn Bhd, Mayang Tiasa Sdn Bhd, and the Datuk Bandar of Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya. Each defendant applied to strike out the claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. Two connected questions arose: whether an application that pleads sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Order 18 rule 19 cumulatively is thereby void or ineffective, and whether the action was barred by res judicata because it mirrored matters previously raised and determined at an Appeal Board hearing and in subsequent judicial review proceedings.

The court allowed the striking-out applications. It held that pleading the limbs of Order 18 rule 19 cumulatively did not render the applications void, since the limbs are not mutually exclusive and a claim may be assailed on more than one ground. On the substance, it found that the plaintiffs' action was, in effect, a re-agitation of issues that had already been raised and adjudicated in the earlier Appeal Board proceedings and the ensuing judicial review, so that the action was barred and amounted to an abuse of process. Concluding that the plaintiffs' claim was plainly and obviously unsustainable, the court allowed the applications of the first to fifth defendants to strike out the claim, awarding costs of RM10,000 for each application. The judgment is a useful illustration of the application of res judicata to defeat a fresh action that duplicates matters already decided, and of the propriety of pleading the limbs of Order 18 rule 19 together.