AINA NADIA BINTI AHMAD v 1. ) AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 2. ) MOHD RAZMIEN BIN RAMLI BERAMAL DI ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA TETUAN RAZMIEN & CO PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) TETUAN RAZMIEN & CO 2. ) MOHD HAZROL BIN ROHANI @ MOHD ROSMEY

Case Significance

Illustrates the striking out of an indemnity or contribution claim between co-defendants under Order 18 rule 19 and how such a determination can render a related application academic.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application by a second defendant to strike out an indemnity claim brought against it by a first defendant, in an action over the loss of the proceeds of sale of inherited land. The plaintiff, a beneficiary of an estate that comprised a piece of land that had been sold, had brought the main action against two defendants to recover general and special damages for the loss of the sale proceeds of RM600,000.00, alleging negligence and fraud in the handling of the payment of those proceeds. The proceeds had been deposited into an account under the control of the first defendant, an Islamic financial institution, and the second defendant, a law firm, had been engaged to handle the sale of the inherited land, including the closing of the estate account, the documentation of the agreements and the release of the sale proceeds to the parties entitled. Within that action the first defendant had brought an indemnity claim against the second defendant, and the second defendant applied under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out that indemnity claim. The court examined the affidavits, the written submissions and the authorities cited to determine whether the indemnity claim was sustainable. Being satisfied that the second defendant's application was well founded, the court allowed it and struck out the first defendant's indemnity claim against the second defendant, ordering the first defendant to pay costs of RM2,000.00 to the second defendant; a related application was thereby rendered academic and required no further decision. The first defendant appealed. The judgment is a useful illustration of the striking out of an indemnity or contribution claim between co-defendants under Order 18 rule 19 and of how such a determination can render a related application academic.