Ovanti Ventures Sdn Bhd (Dahulu Dikenali Sebagai IOU Pay (Asia) Sdn Bhd) v 1. ) ANGGUN DINAMIK HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 2. ) WAN NOORIMIE AZURA BINTI WAN MOHAMAD 3. ) Kuan Choon Hsuing 4. ) Edward Tan Tee Tong 5. ) Wang Ern Wei 6. ) Liew Jwo PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) WANG ERN WEI 2. ) EDWARD TAN TEE TONG 3. ) LIEW JWO 4. ) Kuan Choon Hsuing

wa-22ncc-228-05-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 April 2025 • WA-22NCC-228-05/2022 • 29 min read

1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings – Reply to Defence – Striking out application – Introduction of new allegations and causes of action in reply – Whether reply can depart from statement of claim – Whether new factual matters involving separate transactions can be pleaded in reply – Scope and function of reply pleading – Whether reply must be confined to answering matters raised in defence – Whether questioned paragraphs introduce new causes of action that should have been pleaded in statement of claim – Application of Order 18 rule 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Rules of Court 2012 – Whether questioned paragraphs scandalous, frivolous or vexatious – Whether questioned paragraphs irrelevant to reliefs sought in original claim – Whether questioned paragraphs will prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of action – Whether inclusion of questioned paragraphs constitutes abuse of process – Duplicative litigation of same matters in multiple suits – Risk of inconsistent findings between concurrent proceedings – Whether similar fact evidence provisions under sections 11(b), 14 and 15 of Evidence Act 1950 justify pleading matters in reply – Distinction between pleading facts and adducing similar fact evidence at trial – Proper procedure for expanding claim through amendment rather than reply – Principle of judicial consistency between decisions of coordinate jurisdiction – Application of precedent in substantially similar factual and legal circumstances

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Evidence

Judges (1)

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad Delivered

Counsel (6)

Cecil Abraham & Partners Firm Lim Kian Leong & Co Firm Jeane Lee Yi Jin Counsel Defendant Muzalifah Shabudin Counsel Plaintiff Nur Fathin Farrisya Counsel Plaintiff Ung Zhee Laine Counsel Defendant

Parties (11)

ANGGUN DINAMIK HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL Sdn Bhd Defendant Ovanti Ventures Sdn Bhd (Dahulu Dikenali Sebagai IOU Pay Sdn Bhd) Plaintiff Edward Tan Tee Tong Aggrieved Party Edward Tan Tee Tong Defendant Kuan Choon Hsuing Aggrieved Party Kuan Choon Hsuing Defendant Liew Jwo Aggrieved Party Liew Jwo Defendant Wan Noorimie Azura binti Wan Mohamad Defendant Wang Ern Wei Aggrieved Party Wang Ern Wei Defendant

Case Significance

A clear statement of the confined function of a reply pleading: it answers the defence and cannot introduce new causes of action or separate transactions absent from the statement of claim, and such paragraphs will be struck out, particularly where they risk inconsistent findings across related suits.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application by a defendant to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's Reply to Defence under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff, a payments company (formerly under a different name), had sued a company and several individuals; the fourth defendant applied to strike out identified paragraphs of the plaintiff's reply on the ground that they introduced new allegations and new causes of action — concerning separate transactions — that had no place in a reply pleading. The questions for the court were the proper scope and function of a reply, whether a reply may depart from the statement of claim, and whether new factual matters involving distinct transactions could be raised in that pleading.

The court held that a reply is confined to answering the matters raised in the defence and cannot be used to introduce fresh allegations or causes of action, still less to plead separate transactions that were not part of the case advanced in the statement of claim. The impugned paragraphs did precisely that, and to permit them would allow the plaintiff to expand its case through the back door. The court was also concerned about the risk of inconsistent findings: the same or similar matters were being litigated separately in other suits, and allowing the paragraphs to stand would create an unacceptable risk of conflicting decisions and amount to a backdoor attempt at consolidation that circumvented proper procedural boundaries. Bound by judicial consistency, the court noted that it had previously struck out substantially similar paragraphs in a related suit for identical reasons, and the plaintiff had shown no compelling distinction. It accordingly struck out the questioned paragraphs, while observing that if the plaintiff genuinely believed the transactions were relevant as similar-fact evidence, it could seek to adduce such evidence at trial subject to the court's ruling. The judgment is a clear statement of the confined function of a reply pleading.

Why were the paragraphs of the plaintiff's reply struck out?

The court held that a reply is confined to answering the matters raised in the defence and cannot introduce new allegations or causes of action, let alone plead separate transactions absent from the statement of claim. The impugned paragraphs did exactly that, impermissibly expanding the plaintiff's case, and were struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.

What other concerns supported the strike-out?

The court was concerned that the same or similar matters were being litigated in other suits, so allowing the paragraphs would risk inconsistent findings and amount to a backdoor consolidation circumventing proper procedure. Bound by judicial consistency — having struck out substantially similar paragraphs in a related suit — it struck these out too, leaving the plaintiff to seek to adduce the transactions as similar-fact evidence at trial if relevant.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)

[1967] 1 MLJ 13

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-228-05-2022)