1. ) FLORIE PHILOMINA A/P S G DORAI RAJ 2. ) ABDUL OOVAISE BIN M MOHAMED IQBAL v 1. ) KAVITA A/P J S ANANDAM 2. ) NIK NUR SYARLIN BINTI NIK ISMAIL

Case Significance

Illustrates the striking-out jurisdiction under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 and its application to a claim held to be scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process, dismissed with costs before trial.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns applications by two defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012, in a dispute over land and an alleged loan. The plaintiffs' claim concerned a property in the Mukim of Damansara, in the District of Petaling, which the first plaintiff had originally purchased in 1989 with the assistance of the second plaintiff, and the claim ranged over the validity of a power of attorney, a loan agreement, allegations that the transaction was an unlawful moneylending arrangement, and allegations of fraud and lawful or unlawful conspiracy to injure. Both defendants applied to strike out the claim, and the applications were heard together. The court considered the four limbs of Order 18 rule 19, under which a pleading may be struck out if it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, may prejudice or embarrass the fair trial of the action, or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, bearing in mind that the summary power to strike out is to be exercised only in plain and obvious cases. It also weighed the effect of limitation and the state of the pleaded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, which must be pleaded with particularity. Examining the statement of claim, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim fell within the scope of what is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. It accordingly allowed both applications and struck out the plaintiffs' case under Order 18 rule 19, with costs of RM3,000 to each defendant. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the striking-out jurisdiction under Order 18 rule 19 and of its application to a claim that, on analysis, is an abuse of process.