KEE LEE PEOW v 1. ) KEE JEK HEE 2. ) KOK SIEW POH 3. ) Lee Ying Ying (sebagai Penjaga dan Pemegang Amanah Bagi Kee Wai Mun (No. K/P: 080803-14-0844)
Catchwords
Conclusion [24] For all the foregoing reasons, this Court found that the Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process. See Lee Teck Meng v Prem Kumar a/l Ganasaratnam & Ors [2021] MLJU 394; Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 1 MLRA 611; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993]; [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 2 AMR 1969; Zakaria Mohamed Esa v Dato Abdul Aziz Ahmad & Ors [1984] 2 MLRH 494; [1985] 2 MLJ 222. [25] The Plaintiff appeared to be an officious bystander who has taken it upon herself to meddle in the private affairs of a family to which she has no legal connection beyond siblinghood with the Deceased. Such interference cannot be countenanced by the courts. [26] The Defendants’ application was allowed with costs of RM10,000 to be paid forthwith, subject to allocator. The Plaintiff’s suit was thereby struck out. The security for costs ordered earlier provided were to be returned.
Practice Areas
Conclusion 24 For all the foregoing reasons, this Court found that the Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process. See Lee Teck Meng v Prem Kumar a/l Ganasaratnam & Ors 2021 MLJU 394; Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd 1993 1 MLRA 611; 1993 4 CLJ 7; 1993; 1993 3 MLJ 36; 1993 2 AMR 1969; Zakaria Mohamed Esa v Dato Abdul Aziz Ahmad & Ors 1984 2 MLRH 494; 1985 2 MLJ 222. 25 The Plaintiff appeared to be an officious bystander who has taken it upon herself to meddle in the private affairs of a family to which she has no legal connection beyond siblinghood with the Deceased. Such interference cannot be countenanced by the courts. 26 The Defendants’ application was allowed with costs of RM10,000 to be paid forthwith, subject to allocator. The Plaintiff’s suit was thereby struck out. The security for costs ordered earlier provided were to be returned.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
KEE LEE PEOW v 1. ) KEE JEK HEE 2. ) KOK SIEW POH 3. ) Lee Ying Ying (sebagai... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 9, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-629-11-2023). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.
What was the outcome of KEE LEE PEOW v 1. ) KEE JEK HEE 2. ) KOK SIEW POH 3. ) Lee Ying Ying (sebagai...?
KEE LEE PEOW v 1. ) KEE JEK HEE 2. ) KOK SIEW POH 3. ) Lee Ying Ying (sebagai... is a High Court decision dated October 9, 2025. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.