1. ) TAN HOCK SENG 2. ) VICTOR TAN HAN FUNG v Wong Lian Soon

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited scope of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 — it cannot be used to bypass specific procedures or to obtain substantive relief such as a pre-trial mandatory injunction — and the limited admissibility of a prior judgment under sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act 1950.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an interlocutory appeal against a Sessions Court judge's refusal of an application brought under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 — the court's inherent jurisdiction. The appellants were defendants in a Sessions Court suit brought by the respondent, who sued as Deputy Chairman of a residents' association. By their application the defendants sought, among other things, an order that the plaintiff pay a sum of RM391,971.90 within seven days, a stay of the proceedings, and the dismissal of the action if that payment order were not complied with. The Sessions Court judge dismissed the application as an abuse of process lacking a valid legal basis, holding that it was not a legitimate exercise of the inherent jurisdiction but an attempt to bypass ordinary litigation and to obtain what was in substance a mandatory injunction before trial, while enforcing findings from separate proceedings.

On appeal, the defendants argued that the Sessions Court should have used its inherent power under Order 92 rule 4 to prevent an injustice said to arise from an earlier suit. The court reiterated the settled limits on the inherent jurisdiction: it is of limited scope and is not a licence to circumvent the specific procedural mechanisms provided by the rules, as the Federal Court had emphasised in authorities such as Datuk Seri S. Nallakaruppan v Public Prosecutor. It also held that reliance on the earlier suit was misplaced, since under sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act 1950 the admissibility of a prior judgment is limited and does not bind separate proceedings involving different issues and relief unless it amounts to res judicata or a judgment in rem, which the earlier suit did not.

Finding no misdirection in principle or manifest injustice in the Sessions Court's decision, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision, ordering costs of RM3,000.00. The judgment illustrates the limited reach of the inherent jurisdiction.