LIPUTAN CANGGIH Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A corporate party in a multi-suit contractual-payment dispute, whose matters turn on proof of entitlement across consolidated suits and the strike-out and stay jurisdiction over overlapping proceedings.

LIPUTAN CANGGIH Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus within the same consolidated group of contractual-payment suits and connected strike-out applications as the related development and consultancy companies, and its appearances turn on the proof of contractual entitlement and the management of overlapping proceedings. In consolidated High Court suits heard together, the court described the dispute as concerning the veracity of contractual payments under an agreement dated 12 December 2012, and recorded that after full trial it ruled in favour of the relevant party in one suit, entering final judgment against the defendants, while finding no merit in fact or law in the other suit and dismissing it with costs.

The company also appears in strike-out matters. In one, framed in Bahasa Malaysia, a firm applied under Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 (Order 18 rule 19) of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out an originating summons. In another it was a defendant to an application to strike out an amended defence and counterclaim and to stay proceedings under Order 18 rule 19 and Order 92 rule 4, the court considering whether the amended defence was an abuse of process, whether striking out was justified, and whether a stay was appropriate pending disposal of related appeals given the nexus between the current case and related civil suits.

For a reader, the company's appearances are best understood as one strand of a multi-suit commercial dispute in which the same documentary record supports one claim and defeats another, and in which the pleadings-management jurisdiction is used to strike out abusive pleadings and to stay overlapping proceedings. The corporate and firm parties are named as they appear on the record; the individual co-parties are referred to by their procedural role only. As one strand of a multi-suit commercial dispute, the company's appearances reinforce the point that consolidation for trial does not fuse the claims: the same documentary record supports one action and defeats another, and the pleadings-management jurisdiction — striking out and staying — remains available to control abusive pleadings and to coordinate proceedings that overlap with related civil suits.