Mha Infotech Sdn Bhd v Horizon Tele System Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-642-09/2023)

The defendant in this action, Horizon Tele Systems Sdn Bhd (“Horizon”) filed an application to strike out the claim of the plaintiff, MHA Infotech Sdn Bhd (“MHA Infotech”) on the ground that the claim is barred by res judicata (“Striking Out Application”).

The court found that the statement of claim in this action contains the same facts and averments as the defence filed by MHA Infotech in a previous action, which involved the same parties. As such, the court held that the doctrine of res judicata applied to prevent the issues raised in the 2 previous action from being re-litigated. The court therefore allowed the Striking Out Application.

In 2017 and 2019, MHA Infotech was awarded contracts for the supply of wall mounted cabinets (“WMC”) to several main switch stations of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (“TNB”). For the purpose of fulfilling its obligations under these contracts, MHA Infotech ordered components for the WMC from Horizon, which included power supply units (“PSU”) and surge protection devices (collectively, the “Products”).

The Products were supplied by Horizon to MHA Infotech.

However, Horizon claimed it was not fully paid by MHA Infotech for the supply of the Products in 2019. Horizon filed Shah Alam Sessions Court Suit No. BA-B52NCvC-217-09/2020 (“Suit 217”), to seek the amount outstanding of RM443,980 against MHA Infotech.

In its defence, MHA Infotech alleged that the PSU supplied by Horizon in 2019 did not meet the specifications imposed by TNB. For this reason, MHA Infotech claimed that it did not owe any monies to Horizon.

The Shah Alam Sessions Court allowed Horizon’s claim against MHA Infotech in Suit 217. A judgment dated 8 March 2022 was issued against MHA Infotech (“Judgment”), ordering the payment of RM443,980 to Horizon.

On 23 March 2022, MHA Infotech filed an appeal against the Judgment. However, the appeal was not proceeded with, as it was filed out of time.

In this action, MHA Infotech is seeking losses and damages from Horizon, as a consequence of Horizon’s delivery of the PSU in 2019, which it alleged did not meet the required specifications. MHA Infotech claimed that this resulted in the termination of its contract for the supply of the WMC to TNB’s main switch stations. MHA Infotech claimed the costs of the replacement of the PSU and damages arising from the termination of the contract, from Horizon.

Horizon filed the Striking Out Application to strike out this action. The main ground relied on by Horizon is that this action is premised on MHA Infotech’s defence in Suit 217, and by filing this action, MHA Infotech is seeking to re-litigate the issues raised in Suit 217. C. The Striking Out Application

The Striking Out Application is filed under order 18 rule 19(1)(a),

and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”), which reads: “(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that –

it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.” (emphasis added) [12] Horizon’s contention is that MHA Infotech’s claim is barred by res judicata, as the issues sought to be adjudicated by MHA Infotech in this action are the same issues that MHA Infotech had raised in Suit 217. Relying on Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36, Horizon argued that MHA Infotech’s claim is obviously unsustainable, and that this is a plain and obvious case where the court should exercise its power to strike out the claim. D. Considerations [13] The main ground relied on by Horizon in the Striking Out Application is that the issues that are the subject matter of this action are the same issues which were raised in Suit 217. Horizon alleged that the statement of claim in this action contains the same facts and averments as MHA Infotech’s defence in Suit 217. [14] MHA Infotech denied this allegation, claiming that this action is premised on a SIRIM test report dated 10 June 2022 (“Test Report”), which was issued after Suit 217 was disposed of. MHA Infotech claimed the Test Report showed that the Products were defective. [15] Having conducted a comparison of the defence in Suit 217 with the statement of claim in this action, I made the following observations: a. In Suit 217, MHA Infotech referred to the 2017 contract for the supply of the WMC to TNB’s main switch stations (paragraph 6 of the defence). MHA Infotech also stated that Horizon had supplied the Products for the purpose of this contract (paragraph 7 of the defence). The same facts are referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the statement of claim in this action. b. In Suit 217, MHA Infotech referred to the 2019 contract for the supply of the WMC to 200 of TNB’s main switch stations (paragraphs 11 and 12 of the defence). MHA Infotech also stated that for the purpose of this contract, MHA Infotech had ordered, and Horizon had supplied and installed the Products (paragraphs 13, 15, 17 and 18 of the defence). The same facts are referred to in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the statement of claim in this action. c. In Suit 217, MHA Infotech referred to a factory acceptance test that was conducted on the Products on 6 August 2018 (paragraph 16 of the defence). The same test is referred to in paragraph 13 of the statement of claim in this action. d. In Suit 217, MHA Infotech referred to issues raised by TNB on the communications monitoring functions of the WMC (paragraph 19 of the defence), and tests conducted at the TNB stations which revealed that the issue was caused by the PSU which were not functioning (paragraph 20 of the defence). MHA Infotech also referred to TNB’s directions for MHA Infotech to conduct further tests on the PSU (paragraph 21 of the defence). The same facts are referred to in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim in this action. e. In Suit 217, MHA Infotech referred to an email it received from the main contractor for the 2019 contract, FGV Prodata System Sdn Bhd (“FGV Prodata”), which directed MHA Infotech to stop the existing supply of the Products and replace them with other products based on TNB’s specifications (paragraph 22 of the defence). MHA Infotech also referred to proposals for a meeting to further discuss this issue (paragraph 23 of the defence). The same facts are referred to in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the statement of claim in this action. f. In Suit 217, MHA Infotech referred to a further exchange of emails regarding the return of the PSU, and MHA Infotech’s request for a report on the PSU from Horizon (paragraphs 26, 28, 30, 31 and 32 of the defence). The same facts are referred to in paragraphs 23, 25, 26 and 27 of the statement of claim in this action. g. In Suit 217, MHA Infotech claimed the report on the PSU revealed that changes were made to the PSU since 2017, which MHA Infotech and TNB were not notified of (paragraphs 33 and 34 of the defence). The same facts are referred to in paragraph 28 of the statement of claim in this action. [16] From the comparison above, it is clear that this action contains identical facts with the defence filed by MHA Infotech in Suit 217. The facts arise from the same transactional relationship, the same contracts, and relate to the supply of the same products. The parties in Suit 217 and this action are the same. [17] Essentially, the main issue raised in this action is that the PSU do not comply with the required specifications. This issue had been raised in Suit 217, and is set out not only in MHA Infotech’s defence in Suit 217, but also in the issues to be tried filed by the parties, in MHA Infotech’s summary of case, and in the witness statements of MHA Infotech’s witnesses. The witnesses were cross-examined on the issue of the defective PSU, and the post-trial submissions filed by MHA Infotech also referred to this issue. [18] With the issue having been considered and deliberated in Suit 217, I find that it is not open for MHA Infotech to now re-litigate the issue raised in Suit 217, in this action. My finding is supported by cases which have held that res judicata applies in a situation where an action is filed based on the same facts and issues as a prior action that had been previously decided upon (see Leong Yew Chin v Hock Hua Bank Bhd [2008] 3 MLJ 340; Dato’ Sivananthan a/l Shanmugam v Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLJ 122 and Sungai Dinar Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Pekebun Kecil Wilayah Johor Selatan Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 823). [19] I considered MHA Infotech’s position that this action is premised on the Test Report. MHA Infotech claimed the report proves that there are merits to this action. However, I note that: a. In its defence in Suit 217, MHA Infotech had already raised the issue of the PSU’s failure to meet the required specifications, and the request by FGV Prodata to replace the PSU with other products; b. MHA Infotech did not file a counterclaim to seek damages against Horizon for the PSU’s failure to meet the required specifications; c. During the trial of Suit 217, MHA Infotech did not provide any report on the non-compliance of the PSU with the required specifications; and d. MHA Infotech had only made an application for the Test Report to be issued on 10 May 2022, after Horizon obtained the Judgment on 8 March 2022. The Test Report was only issued on 10 June 2022. [20] It is clear that the issue of the defective PSU had already been raised and adjudicated in Suit 217, and as such, the doctrine of res judicata would apply to prevent the re-adjudication of this issue. The fact that the Test Report was later produced cannot form a valid reason for the issue to be re-litigated in this action. [21] Further, the courts have also held that res judicata would not only apply to prevent the re-adjudication of issues that had already been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. It would also apply to all issues that could have been brought forward by parties exercising reasonable diligence (see Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189 and Mayban Allied Bhd (formerly known as Phileo Allied Bank (M) Bhd) v Kenneth Godfrey Gomez [2011] 5 MLJ 219). [22] Thus, even if the Test Report raises new issues, these issues would be connected to the specifications of the PSU. In this regard, it would in any event be an issue that could have and should have been raised in Suit 217. Thus, MHA Infotech is estopped by the doctrine of res judicata from raising the issue in this action. [23] The courts have exercised powers to strike out actions pursuant to order 18 rule 19(1) of the ROC 2012 on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata (see Mayban Allied Bhd (formerly known as Phileo Allied Bank (M) Bhd) v Kenneth Godfrey Gomez [2011] 5 MLJ 219 and Sungai Dinar (supra)). [24] In Sungai Dinar (supra), the Court of Appeal held as follows: “[17] In our judgment, one of the grounds upon which an application under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 can be made is provided in para (1)(b) which states that an action is scandalous, frivolous as vexatious and the most common instance of matters which are struck out on this ground are those which are res judicata (see Malaysian Court Practice, 2007 Desk Ed, Lexis Nexis at p 246).” (emphasis added) [25] The Court of Appeal then went on to refer to Bandar Builder (supra), and held that the exercise of the summary powers of striking out should only be carried out in plain and obvious cases. The court held that the case was a plain and obvious case that would allow recourse to the summary procedure under order 18 rule 19(1) of the ROC 2012. [26] In the present case, with the finding that res judicata applies, this is a plain and obvious case for the court to exercise its power to strike out MHA Infotech’s claim against Horizon. E.

[27] The Striking Out Application is therefore allowed, with costs. Dated 23 October 2025 ADLIN ABDUL MAJID Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur Counsel: Plaintiff : Syamsul Azhar Ab Aziz of Mesrs. Azhar Aziz & Associates Defendant : Nur Amirah Noor Azlan (together with Kenneth Tan) of Messrs. Low & Partners