1. ) ARIEF AFFENDI BIN AB WAHAB 2. ) ASMAA' BINTI ABDULLAH 3. ) FARIS SYAHMI BIN MOHD FAUZI 4. ) NOOR EDURA BINTI MAT ZIN 5. ) NUR AZYAN ATHIRAH BTE ABDUL WAHID @ MAHFOZ 6. ) MOHD RASYID BIN MOHSIN 7. ) SUFIAN LIM XI ZHAO BIN AZLIM 8. ) ZUNAIDAH BINTI OMAR 9. ) MEGAT NU'MAN MEGAT HARUN 10. ) AHMAD ROHAIZAD BIN YUSOFF 11. ) MUHAMMAD SAIFUDDIN BIN ZABIL 12. ) MOHD AFFIRUDDIN BIN MOHD YUSOF 13. ) MOHD NASIR BIN MAMAT KIA 14. ) MUHAMMAD HARITH BIN MOHAMED ROUSE 15. ) ELZA BINTI AHMAD KHALILI 16. ...
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (7)
Parties (193)
Case Significance
Confirms that an allegation of fraud must be pleaded with particularity as to knowledge, intention and dishonesty, that each plaintiff in a misrepresentation claim must plead individual reliance, and that holding a statutory office does not by itself create personal liability, so that prolix collective pleadings may be struck out.
This High Court decision in the Commercial Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns applications to strike out a large group action arising from an alleged cooperative-based investment scam. The action was brought by 181 plaintiffs, all members of a cooperative, who alleged that they had been the victims of a scam founded on fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust and regulatory failure, and who sued a range of defendants including individuals said to have promoted the scheme, the cooperative itself and regulatory bodies. Two of the defendants — one pleaded as a well-known stock-market personality and remisier who had leveraged his public profile, seminars and social-media following, and another said to be connected with the cooperative's affairs — applied to strike out the writ and statement of claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Court held that the pleadings were prolix and made collective allegations against multiple defendants without pleading the material facts required to sustain the claims. In particular, an allegation of fraud must be pleaded with particularity, setting out the knowledge, intention and dishonesty relied on, which the statement of claim failed to do; and a claim in misrepresentation required each of the many plaintiffs to plead his or her own individual reliance, which had not been done. As against the defendant said to hold a statutory office, the Court observed that statutory functions do not translate into automatic personal liability, and that the statement of claim was silent on what she personally did or failed to do. Concluding that this was a plain and obvious case for striking out, the Court allowed the applications and struck out the claims against the two defendants with costs. The decision is a reminder that the seriousness of the wrong alleged does not relax the rules of pleading; on the contrary, the graver the allegation, such as fraud, the greater the need for the material facts to be set out clearly and individually against each defendant and for each claimant.
Why were the claims against the two defendants struck out?
The Court held that the pleadings were prolix and made collective allegations against multiple defendants without pleading the required material facts. Fraud was not pleaded with the necessary particularity of knowledge, intention and dishonesty, and the many plaintiffs had not pleaded their individual reliance for misrepresentation. This was a plain and obvious case for striking out under Order 18 rule 19, and the claims were struck out with costs.
Did holding a statutory office make a defendant personally liable?
No. The Court observed that statutory functions do not translate into automatic personal liability, and that the statement of claim was silent on what the defendant said to hold a statutory office had personally done or failed to do. Without pleaded particulars of a specific personal breach, the claim against her could not be sustained.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-800-11-2024)