DHANARAJ A/L VASUDEVAN v 1. ) BISHOPGATE CAPITAL LIMITED 2. ) XXXX 3. ) MESSRS. YEOW & WONG 4. ) MESSRS. K.H.WONG, CHIN & CHEAH
Catchwords
Abstract The advocate and solicitor Plaintiff sued seven defendants for harassment and intimidation based on a single professional letter seeking clarification about court statements. Upon applications to strike out by the defendants, his claim was struck out the claims under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC 2012, finding no reasonable cause of action. Harassment claim failed as tort requires "persistent and deliberate course of conduct" (Mohd Ridzwan) - one letter cannot constitute the necessary repetitive behaviour. Intimidation claim failed as no unlawful threat existed; the letter contained a lawful warning, and the plaintiff continued practising after receipt, negating the submission element. The court held that weaponising routine professional correspondence into litigation constituted abuse of process, emphasising that lawyers must seek clarification without fear of harassment claims. Keywords Harassment – intimidation - striking out - professional correspondence - abuse of process - course of conduct
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-23ncvc-76-11-2024)