SHEELA A/P GEORGE v 1. ) RADZALI BIN AHMAD KOLDI 2. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Case Significance

Illustrates the exercise of the striking-out power under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 in relation to a negligence claim against a financier, and confirms that a lender's private caveat to protect its interest is not objectionable.

This High Court decision concerns an application by a bank to strike out a negligence claim brought against it in a dispute over the transfer of title to a house. The plaintiff, the administratrix of her late father's estate, sought to have the title to a house registered in her name. Her late father had bought the house from the first defendant, the vendor, and had partly financed the purchase with a loan from the second defendant bank; the bank had later confirmed that the loan was fully settled and invited him to discuss the release of the title, but the title remained in the vendor's name. The plaintiff's claim against the second defendant was framed in negligence, alleging that the bank had failed to take steps to transfer the title from the vendor's name. The decision concerned the second defendant's application to strike out the amended statement of claim against it under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. The predominant issue was whether this was a proper case for the exercise of the striking-out power. The Court held that the bank's entry of a private caveat to protect its interests was neither irregular nor objectionable, that the authorities relied on by the plaintiff were distinguishable, and that grounds such as estoppel, afterthought and want of good faith were irrelevant to the striking-out application. Being satisfied that the threshold under Order 18 rule 19 was met, the Court allowed the application and struck out the claim against the second defendant, with costs. The judgment illustrates the exercise of the striking-out power under Order 18 rule 19 in relation to a negligence claim against a financier. The decision is a practical example of the striking-out jurisdiction being used to end a claim that discloses no reasonable cause of action against a financier, and it confirms that a lender's step of lodging a private caveat to protect its own interest is unobjectionable and cannot itself found a claim in negligence.