Content
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN SAMAN PEMULA NO: BA-24NCvC-369-02/2025 Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 25(2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Perkara 17 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA SKS FOAM (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 191363-U)(dalam penggulungan) PLAINTIF DAN SKS INTEGRATED GROUP SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 788511-X EFENDAN 24/06/2025 09:48:33 BA-24NCvC-369-02/2025 Kand. 35 S/N x7ecIIA1YEu4aGcczApq7w GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosures 1 and 6) [1] This is an application by the Plaintiff for an order that the Defendant be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to the additional power of the High Court in paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 that reads as follows: "Power to restrain any person who has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings in any court, whether against the same or different persons, from instituting any legal proceedings in any court save by leave of a Judge. A copy of any such order shall be published in the Gazette" [2] In Sim Kooi Soon v. Malaysia Airlines System (No. 2) [2010] 9 CLJ 936, the Court of Appeal identified the features of a vexatious litigant as someone who sues the same party repeatedly on essentially the same cause of action, has little or no basis in law to sue and whose actions has the effect of subjecting the opposing party to inconvenience. As summarised by Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759 at 764: The hallmark [of persistent and habitual litigious activity] usually is that the plaintiff sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim;... that the claimant automatically challenges every adverse decision on S/N x7ecIIA1YEu4aGcczApq7w appeal; and that the claimant refuses to take any notice of or give any effect to orders of the court. The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop. [3] the list of Court proceedings complained of by the Plaintiff emanated from enforcement actions initiated by the Plaintiff and that the Defendant is merely exercising its right to defend. This Court disagrees. Vexatious litigation is not limited to plaintiffs who bring groundless claims. It also applications or appeals simply to obstruct proceedings. [4] In this case, the Defendant has for about a decade, been resisting efforts by the liquidator to recover possession of a property held under title No. GM16606, Lot No. 15842, Mukim Kapar, Daerah Klang ( ) as part of his statutory function vesting order granted by the winding-up Court on 29-5-2015 ( ) in a clawback action that vested proprietorship over said Property back to the Plaintiff. The Defendant claims to be a bona fide purchaser of the Property. [5] The first attempt to set aside the Vesting Order was vide an application filed within the Winding Up Petition No: 28-535-12/2012 ( ). It failed. However, the Winding Up Order in Petition 535 was set aside on appeal for unrelated reasons (i.e. the Order was made by the Deputy Registrar and not a High Court Judge) and on 22-11-2018, Petition 535 was remitted to the High Court for re-hearing. S/N x7ecIIA1YEu4aGcczApq7w [6] At this point, the Defendant took the position that the Vesting Order, which it characterised as being premised on the original Winding Up Order, was also rendered invalid and applied to set it aside ( ). Enclosure 255 was heard and dismissed by the High Court who at the same time, made a second Winding Up Order within Petition 535. [7] The appeal against the dismissal of Enclosure 255 was withdrawn, a move which had enduring consequences for the Defendant. [8] The Defendant tried to set aside the Vesting Order again via a post winding-up application in BA-28PW-40-02/2020 ( PW40 ) for leave to commence proceedings against the Plaintiff under section 471 of the Companies Act 2016 to, inter alia, set aside the Vesting Order. PW40 was dismissed by the High Court and appeals to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court against this dismissal failed. The avenues of appeal were exhausted. [9] The Defendant thereafter continued with the campaign to set aside the Vesting Order via 2 further post winding up applications, BA-28PW- 264-10/2023 ( ) and BA-28PW-22-01/2025 ( ). Both PW264 and PW22 are applications for leave to commence action against the Plaintiff under section 471 of the Companies Act 2016 for various orders, essentially to recover ownership of the Property. Both PW264 and PW22 are still pending. S/N x7ecIIA1YEu4aGcczApq7w [10] On a perusal of the papers filed in the proceedings, it is not seriously disputed that PW40, PW264 and PW22 are all premised on variations of essentially the same grounds i.e. that the Vesting Order is invalid because the Property did not form part of the estate of the company liquidation and/or because it was premised on a Winding Up Order that had been set aside. [11] As noted, the dismissal of Enclosure 255 was the turning point in the litigation because the Vesting Order became final and binding when the appeal against its dismissal was withdrawn. Thereafter, the appeals on the dismissal of PW40 were unsuccessful and exhausted. On a rational the Property should have come to an end as all available grounds to challenge the validity of the Vesting Order had been unsuccessfully ventilated. The issues were res judicata. [12] Still unsatisfied, the pending PW264 and PW22 are being used by the Defendant to thwart efforts by the liquidator to take possession of the Property for liquidation. As part of those efforts, the liquidator had filed BA- 24NCvC-878-06/2022 to restore title to the Property on the register to the Plaintiff, which was allowed by the High Court. The liquidator then filed BA-24NCvC-2021-10/2023 for summary possession of the Property which was occupied by the Defendant and its related parties, which was also allowed by the High Court. These are necessary steps to enforce the Vesting Order. [13] In the aforesaid enforcement proceedings, this Court notes that the Defendant has filed applications to strike out, to stay proceedings and/or execution, appeals to the Court of Appeal and similar interim relief, S/N x7ecIIA1YEu4aGcczApq7w whenever such avenue was procedurally open, regardless of the merits and circumstances that prevailed, namely that there were ultimately no recovery and liquidation of the Property by the Plaintiff. [14] Therefore, this Court must agree that the demonstrates a sustained and deliberate pattern of vexatious litigation. PW40, PW264 and PW22 are repeated applications for leave to commence fresh action premised on issues that have already been finally determined. They have then been weaponized to obstruct the liquidation through continuous and reflexive procedural filings and appeals. [15] For the above reasons, Enclosure 1 is allowed application in Enclosure 6 to strike out Enclosure 1 is dismissed. This Court awards global costs of RM20,000.00 for Enclosures 1 and 6. This Court also ordered that the injunction granted is confined to litigation related to the Property and is to have no retrospective effect. Bertarikh : 24 Jun 2025 SGD ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM S/N x7ecIIA1YEu4aGcczApq7w Peguam Untuk Plaintif: Sukhwinder Singh, Messrs Sukhwinder Singh N Mahinder Singh Untuk Defendan: Arun Ganesh Boopalan, Messrs Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim S/N x7ecIIA1YEu4aGcczApq7w