MOK CHIA WU v 1. ) CHUA CHEE WEAE 2. ) CHUA CHEE LIANG

ja-22ncvc-141-10-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 27 November 2025 • JA-22NCvC-141-10/2024 • 22 min read

9 cases cited (0 SG, 9 foreign)

Catchwords

Guaman sivil – Permohonan membatalkan tindakan – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Limb teras – Tindakan tidak menzahirkan kausa tindakan munasabah – Ujian “plain and obvious” dan “plainly and obviously unsustainable” – Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 – Prinsip landmark strike out – Andaian fakta plaintif diambil benar tetapi gagal dari segi undang-undang – Perbicaraan tidak boleh digunakan untuk mencipta hak undang-undang yang tidak wujud – Elakan perbicaraan sia-sia Kontrak – Privity of contract – Option to Purchase (OTP) hanya ditandatangani oleh Defendan Pertama – Defendan Kedua bukan pihak penandatangan – Tiada kontrak yang mengikat Defendan Kedua – Pelaksanaan khusus – Ketidakbolehan memaksa pemilik bersama (co-owner) memindahkan bahagian tak terbahagi tanpa asas kontrak Agensi – Actual authority dan apparent authority – Keperluan representasi oleh prinsipal – Dakwaan persetujuan lisan dan mandat – Kegagalan memlead fakta material – Hubungan kekeluargaan dan pemilikan bersama tidak mewujudkan agensi – Inferens dan andaian tidak mencukupi Prosedur sivil – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(2) KKM 2012 – Larangan penerimaan keterangan bagi permohonan di bawah limb (a) – Afidavit orang tengah/broker – Kedudukan kebolehterimaan – Walaupun diambil “at its highest”, tidak mengatasi kecacatan undang-undang asas – “Triable issues” yang bersifat periferi dan tidak menentukan Penyalahgunaan proses – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan (d) – Limb sokongan – Percubaan mengekalkan tindakan terhadap pihak tanpa asas kontraktual – Overreaching terhadap pemilik bersama – Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 KKM 2012 – Bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah Keputusan – Permohonan Defendan Kedua dibenarkan – Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan dibatalkan setakat terhadap Defendan Kedua sahaja – Tindakan terhadap Defendan Pertama diteruskan – Kos RM3,000.00 kepada Defendan Kedua.

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Contract

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Counsel (5)

G.K Sritharan Firm RK Menon Firm G.K. Sritharan Counsel Plaintiff Ishwinder Counsel Defendant RK Menon Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Chua Chee Liang Defendant Chua Chee Weae Defendant Mok Chia Wu Plaintiff

Case Significance

A strike-out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) where want of privity — an Option to Purchase signed only by the first defendant — rendered the claim against the second defendant plainly unsustainable.

This High Court decision concerns an application to strike out a civil action under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 — the limb directed at a pleading that discloses no reasonable cause of action. The application was made by the second defendant only, and required the Court to decide whether the plaintiff's claim against that defendant disclosed any reasonable cause of action in law, or whether, even assuming all the plaintiff's pleaded facts to be true, the action was plainly and obviously unsustainable and so fit to be terminated at an early stage.

The Court began from the settled principles governing this limb, drawn from Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd, the landmark authority on striking out. It emphasised that the power to strike out is a drastic one, to be exercised with great care so as not to deny any party a fair trial, but recognised that a court also has a responsibility to prevent parties being put to the expense of a trial that is bound to fail. The determinative issue was one of privity of contract: the Option to Purchase relied upon had been signed only by the first defendant, and the second defendant was not a party to it. With no contract binding the second defendant, the claim against that defendant disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and a trial could not be used to create a legal right that did not exist.

The Court accordingly struck out the action against the second defendant, fixed costs of RM3,000 payable by the plaintiff to that defendant, and terminated the proceedings against the second defendant at that stage, while directing that the plaintiff's action against the first defendant was unaffected and should continue. The judgment is a clear illustration of how privity of contract can be decisive on a strike-out application.

Summary

Mok Chia Wu sued two co-owners of a property to enforce an Option to Purchase signed only by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant applied to strike out the action, arguing no privity of contract existed. The court struck out the claim against the 2nd defendant, finding that the OTP was signed only by the 1st defendant, no agency relationship was established, and requiring a non-contracting co-owner to transfer his undivided share was plainly unsustainable.

On what basis was the strike-out sought?

The second defendant applied under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) to strike out the claim against it as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, on the ground that the Option to Purchase was signed only by the first defendant and there was no contract binding the second defendant.

What did the Court decide?

Applying the Bandar Builder principles, the Court held the claim against the second defendant was plainly and obviously unsustainable for want of privity, struck it out with costs of RM3,000 payable by the plaintiff, and directed that the action against the first defendant continue.

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (9)

MY (8)

[1968] 1 MLJ 170 [1993] 3 MLJ 36 [1996] 1 MLJ 233 [2009] 2 MLJ 102 [2017] MLJU 1765 [2020] MLJU 761 [2023] 3 CLJ 485 [2023] 3 MLJ 393

IN (1)

AIR 1969 SC 193

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-22ncvc-141-10-2024)