1. ) PENGANUT DEWA LIU SAN QIAN TIAN CHERAS KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGANUT WONG SIONG TONG, JALAN PEEL, KUALA LUMPUR v EVERMARK REALTY SDN BHD.
Catchwords
Conclusion [33] For the reasons set out above, this Court found that the Plaintiffs' claim aptly fell under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 that ought to be struck out. [34] The Plaintiffs’ claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action in light of the Judgment in the Eviction Proceedings, which had conclusively determined the Plaintiffs' status as squatters simpliciter. The claim was frivolous and vexatious as it sought to contradict a subsisting judgment and harassed the Defendant in the exercise of its lawful proprietary rights. The claim also constituted an abuse of process as it amounts to litigation by instalments and an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been determined. [35] While this Court is mindful of the observations in See Thong & Anor v. Saw Beng Chong [2013] 4 MLRA 259; [2013] 3 MLJ 235; [2013] 3 AMR 385 regarding the draconian nature of the striking out power, the present case falls squarely within the category of "plain and obvious cases" where summary determination is appropriate. [36] To permit the Plaintiffs to proceed with this claim would not only undermine the finality of the Judgment in the Eviction Proceedings but would also encourage parties to fragment their disputes and pursue multiple proceedings in an attempt to obtain a more favourable outcome. This would be contrary to the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the court's business. [37] Although the Plaintiffs relied on See Thong and Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v. Che Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors [2011] 1 MLRA; [2012] 1 MLJ 473; [2012] 1 CLJ 75; [2012] 1 AMR 20 in their argument that the draconian power to strike out should be exercised sparingly, and that triable issues existed regarding their equitable claims, this Court is satisfied that the prior determination in the Eviction Proceedings is conclusive. [38] The Plaintiffs' submissions on licensee coupled with equity were precisely the issues that ought to have been, and could have been, raised in the Eviction Proceedings. To allow these issues to be relitigated would defeat the fundamental principle of finality enshrined in the doctrine of res judicata. [39] Accordingly, the Defendant's application to strike out was allowed. The Plaintiffs' Amended Writ and Amended SoC filed on 23.4.2025 were thereby struck out with costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocator.
Practice Areas
Conclusion 33 For the reasons set out above, this Court found that the Plaintiffs' claim aptly fell under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 that ought to be struck out. 34 The Plaintiffs’ claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action in light of the Judgment in the Eviction Proceedings, which had conclusively determined the Plaintiffs' status as squatters simpliciter. The claim was frivolous and vexatious as it sought to contradict a subsisting judgment and harassed the Defendant in the exercise of its lawful proprietary rights. The claim also constituted an abuse of process as it amounts to litigation by instalments and an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been determined. 35 While this Court is mindful of the observations in See Thong & Anor v. Saw Beng Chong 2013 4 MLRA 259; 2013 3 MLJ 235; 2013 3 AMR 385 regarding the draconian nature of the striking out power, the present case falls squarely within the category of "plain and obvious cases" where summary determination is appropriate. 36 To permit the Plaintiffs to proceed with this claim would not only undermine the finality of the Judgment in the Eviction Proceedings but would also encourage parties to fragment their disputes and pursue multiple proceedings in an attempt to obtain a more favourable outcome. This would be contrary to the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the court's business. 37 Although the Plaintiffs relied on See Thong and Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v. Che Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors 2011 1 MLRA; 2012 1 MLJ 473; 2012 1 CLJ 75; 2012 1 AMR 20 in their argument that the draconian power to strike out should be exercised sparingly, and that triable issues existed regarding their equitable claims, this Court is satisfied that the prior determination in the Eviction Proceedings is conclusive. 38 The Plaintiffs' submissions on licensee coupled with equity were precisely the issues that ought to have been, and could have been, raised in the Eviction Proceedings. To allow these issues to be relitigated would defeat the fundamental principle of finality enshrined in the doctrine of res judicata. 39 Accordingly, the Defendant's application to strike out was allowed. The Plaintiffs' Amended Writ and Amended SoC filed on 23.4.2025 were thereby struck out with costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocator.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) PENGANUT DEWA LIU SAN QIAN TIAN CHERAS KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGA... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated September 7, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-204-03-2025). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.
What was the outcome of 1. ) PENGANUT DEWA LIU SAN QIAN TIAN CHERAS KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGA...?
1. ) PENGANUT DEWA LIU SAN QIAN TIAN CHERAS KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) PERSATUAN PENGA... is a High Court decision dated September 7, 2025. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.