Blackspace Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Mitchell Wong Pou Yee (BA-22NCvC-329-08/2024)

MITCHELL WONG POU YEE

CHENG WEE WEE

LIM EE LING

SOH EE FAN (NO. K/P: 820710-01-5455) (Berniaga sebagai rakan Kongsi INTERSPARK DESIGN & BUILD ENTERPRISE) ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 20/06/2025 15:50:45 BA-22NCvC-329-08/2024 Kand. 58 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an application in Enclosure 23 by the Third and Fourth Defendants for them to be removed and/or not made parties in the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim dated 12 August, 2024. However, the application was made pursuant to Order 18 rule 9(1)(a) – (d) of the Rules of Court, 2012. The Vital Issues [2] The vital twin issues in this application are first, whether Enclosure 23 should be dismissed in limine due to serious procedural flaws and second, whether the Plaintiff’s claim against the Third and Fourth Defendants is “plainly and obviously unsustainable”, warranting the striking out of the Plaintiff’s action. The Respective Contentions [3] The application by the Third and Fourth Defendants in Enclosure 23 was premised on the following 8 grounds:

D3 dan D4 adalah rakan perkongsian dalam syarikat yang dikenali sebagai Space Creation Industries Sdn Bhd sejak tahun 2019 dan pernah menjadi sub-kontraktor kepada Plaintif.

Sebagai sub-kontractor yang dilantik oleh Plaintif, D3 dan D4 telah lama menjalankan perniagaan dalam bidang hiasan dalaman malah lebih lama daripada Plaintif dalam bidang tersebut. Seterusnya D3 menyatakan bahawa sebagai sub-kontraktor, D3 dan D4 telah lama “establish” dalam bidang tersebut.

D3 dan D4 juga banyak menjalankan kerja-kerja Plaintif sebagai sub-kontractor sejak 2021 termasuk kerja-kerja pertukangan, kerja-kerja pembahagian (partition works) dan pemasangan kabinet dan almari bagi projek Plaintif dan atau pelanggan-pelanggannya.

D3 dan D4 kemudianya telah menubuhkan syarikat INTERSPARK bersama-sama dangan D1 dan D2 pada 04.03.2024, oleh itu ia adalah suatu entiti yang berbeza dan tiada kaitan dengan Plaintif.

D3 dan D4 telah bergabung dengan Dl dan D2 menubuhkan syarikat INTERSPARK dan memulakan perniagaan mereka sendiri tanpa berkait langsung dengan Plaintif walaupun dalam satu jenis perniagaan yang sama tetapi dalam pasaran terbuka seperti lain-lain syarikat yang ada dalam pasaran.

Alasan Plaintif bahawa D3 dan D4 telah bergabung dengan DI dan D2 dengan memulakan perniagaan mereka telah mencederakan perniagaan Plaintif adalah suatu yang remeh, menyusahkan dan suatu penyalahan proses Mahkamah kerana jenis perniagaan yang dijalankan adalah dalam pasaran terbuka dan dibenarkan oleh undang-undang Malaysia malah tiada sebarang bukti Plaintif telah dicederakan atau mengalami kerugian yang teruk disebabkan D3 dan D4 menjalakan perniagaan mereka sendiri;

Alasan Plaintif D3 dan D4 telah menggunakan maklumat Sulit Plaintif semasa menjalankan perniagaan INTERSPARK adalah suatu yang remeh dan menyusahkan kerana perniagaan tersebut adalah suatu perniagaan dalam pasaran terbuka seperti yang dilakukan oleh Syarikat yang lain juga dan ianya bukan suatu jenis perniagaan yang dimonopoli oleh Syarikat Plaintif sahaja;

D3 dan D4 berhak untuk menubuhkan Syarikat mereka sendiri iaitu INTERSPARK dan menjalankan perniagaan yang sama jenis dengan perniagaan Plaintif. Oleh yang demikian tindakan Plaintif menyaman D3 dan D4 dan semua remedi yang dipohon adalah suatu yang tidak mendedahkan apa-apa kausa tindakan, remeh lagi menyusahkan dan atau adalah suatu penyalahan proses Mahkamah. [4] The essence of the application can be distilled into the sole ground that there is no nexus between the Plaintiff on the one hand and the Third and Fourth Defendants on the other hand, as far as the Plaintiff’s main action is concerned. [5] In resisting the above application, the Plaintiff has raised a preliminary point, in that the Third and Fourth Defendants have relied on or invoked the wrong provision of the Rules of Court 2012. The Plaintiff contended that the correct provision is Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of Court, 2012. [6] In view of the above, and coupled with the “inappropriate relief” to have themselves removed as parties rather than to have the claim against them struck out, the Plaintiff submitted that Enclosure 23 should be dismissed in limine. [7] In support of the above contention, the Plaintiff relied on the case of Tan Siew Chin Sdn Bhd v Ng Jit Thye & Ors [2020] AMEJ 1588; [2020] CLJU 1762; [2020] MLJU 2026; [2020] MLRHU 1615. [8] Alternatively, it was submitted by the Plaintiff that this is not proper case for this Court to invoke it powers under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out its Statement of Claim against the Third and Fourth Defendants. [9] The Plaintiff further asserted that there was inordinate delay in the filing of Enclosure 23. [10] It was highlighted by the Plaintiff that pleadings had closed in October 2024. In addition, the Plaintiff had already filed a Discovery Application on 29 October, 2024 and this application in Enclosure 23 was only filed on 7 January, 2025, approximately 3 months after the close of pleadings, and after the Plaintiff’s Discovery Application was filed and fixed for hearing. [11] In view of the above sequence of events, it was the Plaintiff’s submission that “this unjustified delay constitutes an inordinate delay and tactical afterthought, intended to obstruct the Plaintiff’s preparation and pursuit of justice, clearly warranting dismissal”. [12] In support of the delay argument, the Plaintiff referred this Court to Ng Pik Lian v United Eastern Resources Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] CLJU 596; [2018] MLJU 568; [2018] 5 MLRH 87, which it argued, reaffirmed the principles in Bank Bumiputera (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lorrain Esme Osman [1987] CLJ (Rep) 472; [1987] 2 MLJ 633; [1986] 1 MLRH 458. Decision of this Court [13] This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. The issues raised have been evaluated against the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court 2012 and the applicable legal principles governing the misjoinder and striking out of parties. [14] Having done so, this Court is of the view that the arguments advanced by the Plaintiff merit acceptance. [15] In particular, the Plaintiff’s contention that the Third and Fourth Defendants have invoked the wrong procedural provision is well-founded. The appropriate procedural avenue in such circumstances lies under Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012, and not under the provision relied upon by the Third and Fourth Defendants in Enclosure 23. The failure to proceed under the correct rule is not merely a technical error but one that goes to the root of the application. [16] This Court also finds merit in the Plaintiff’s objection concerning the nature of the relief sought. The application to be “removed as parties” is procedurally inappropriate in the context of a contested action already in progress. The more proper recourse, if at all applicable, would have been an application to strike out the claim pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1), which, as the Plaintiff rightly submitted, has not been properly invoked or substantiated. [17] Further, the Plaintiff’s complaint of inordinate delay is not without basis. The fact that pleadings had closed in October 2024, and that the Plaintiff had already filed its Discovery Application before Enclosure 23 was filed, reinforces the perception that the present application is a tactical response rather than a bona fide procedural challenge. The delay, when viewed in the overall context, supports the Plaintiff’s position that this application is belated and prejudicial to the orderly progression of the suit. [18] Aside from the issues of procedural irregularity and delay, this Court is also of the considered view that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Third and Fourth Defendants cannot be said to be plainly or obviously unsustainable. It is therefore not a case that warrants the drastic remedy of striking out at this stage of the proceedings. [19] In the circumstances, and for the reasons set out above, this Court finds no justification to allow the application in Enclosure 23. It is accordingly dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by the Third and Fourth Defendants to the Plaintiff. Dated: 20 June, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Jonathan Khaw Chern Wei for the Plaintiff (Messrs. Chern & Co.) Sumathi Shanmugam for the Defendants (Messrs. The Chambers of Sumathi)