SHASHI RAJ A/L MOHAN v 1. ) DATO ROSAL AZIMIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) TETUAN SHAMSUDDIN & CO

wa-22ncc-68-02-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 20 October 2025 • WA-22NCC-68-02/2025

Catchwords

Striking out of claim-Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012-Whether a case is plain or obvious does not depend upon the length of time it takes to argue the case, but that when the case argued on the affidavit evidence available, it becomes plain and obvious that the case has no chance of success-Where the affidavit evidence discloses a dispute of facts, such facts must be analysed and if they are found to be inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or inherently improbable in themselves, the court is entitled to reject those facts and proceed upon the undisputed contemporaneous documentary evidence. A trial of the action will not add anything more-The court must submit the evidence to critical examination. If that leads to the conclusion that the action could not possibly succeed it should be struck out- The law is clear that in the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent is not personally liable for the sums incurred by his client the principal based on section 183 of the Contracts Act 1950-There are only three presumptions that an agent is personally liable. These are where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad, or where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal, or where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued-The only way for the agent to avoid the operation of the three presumptions would be to contract out of the presumption of such personal liability either by way of express words, or by implication or inference from documents used, other evidence and surrounding circumstances-Although limbs [b] and [c] of section 183 of the Contracts Act 1950 used the word “and”-each of the limbs stands by itself-

Practice Areas

Striking out of claim-Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012-Whether a case is plain or obvious does not depend upon the length of time it takes to argue the case, but that when the case argued on the affidavit evidence available, it becomes plain and obvious that the case has no chance of success-Where the affidavit evidence discloses a dispute of facts, such facts must be analysed and if they are found to be inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or inherently improbable in themselves, the court is entitled to reject those facts and proceed upon the undisputed contemporaneous documentary evidence. A trial of the action will not add anything more-The court must submit the evidence to critical examination. If that leads to the conclusion that the action could not possibly succeed it should be struck out- The law is clear that in the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent is not personally liable for the sums incurred by his client the principal based on section 183 of the Contracts Act 1950-There are only three presumptions that an agent is personally liable. These are where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad, or where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal, or where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued-The only way for the agent to avoid the operation of the three presumptions would be to contract out of the presumption of such personal liability either by way of express words, or by implication or inference from documents used, other evidence and surrounding circumstances-Although limbs b and c of section 183 of the Contracts Act 1950 used the word “and”-each of the limbs stands by itself-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (3)

TETUAN SHAMSUDDIN & CO Defendant Dato Rosal Azimin bin Ahmad Defendant Shashi Raj a/l Mohan Plaintiff

Case Significance

SHASHI RAJ A/L MOHAN v 1. ) DATO ROSAL AZIMIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) TETUAN SHAMSUDDI... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 20, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-68-02-2025). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of SHASHI RAJ A/L MOHAN v 1. ) DATO ROSAL AZIMIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) TETUAN SHAMSUDDI...?

SHASHI RAJ A/L MOHAN v 1. ) DATO ROSAL AZIMIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) TETUAN SHAMSUDDI... is a High Court decision dated October 20, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.