C
Chuah Seong Keat
Person 1 case
Chuah Seong Keat appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-241-04-2025
CHUAH SEONG KEAT v 1. ) THAI ODYSSEY SDN BHD 2. ) THAI ODYSSEY GROUP SDN BHD 3. ) DIN TAN YONG CHIA 4. ) DION TAN YONG CHIEN 5. ) JARED ANG TZER SHEN 6. ) DIANA TAN SHEIK NI 7. ) THAI ODYSSEY MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN BHD 8. ) THUAN CHEW BOON 9. ) CHOO KIM WONG 10. ) LAI YIP POON 11. ) SPA ODYSSEY VENTURE BERHAD 12. ) SPA ODYSSEY GROUP SDN. BHD. 13. ) SPA ODYSSEY PROCUREMENT SDN. BHD.
MYHC 10 November 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Chuah Seong Keat
Chuah Seong Keat appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning November 2025 to November 2025. Chuah Seong Keat appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Chuah Seong Keat?
Chuah Seong Keat appears in 1 published judgment from November 2025 to November 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1 By way of Enclosure 16, the first to seventh defendants seek to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim dated 15 April 2025 pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 1 2 According to the first to seventh defendants, this action cannot stand as a consent judgment has already been recorded in another High Court in the Commercial Division. 1 3 Meanwhile, the plaintiff argues that this current action to set aside that Consent Judgment must proceed to full trial because the Consent Judgment was entered even though it was not settled in full and final form in the Commercial Division, which is what the plaintiff is now disputing. 1 4 The court finds that this is a plain and obvious case that warrants the exercise of discretion to strike out the plaintiff's action. In this regard, the plaintiff's conduct prior to and following the recording of the consent judgment shows that he finally accepted its terms. As a result, not only is this action an afterthought, but also unilateral error cannot be used to set aside a regularly recorded Consent Judgment. 1 5 Enclosure 16 is therefore allowed with costs. 1