Telagamas Mobility Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Stronghold Cycles Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCvC-87-02/2024)

1.

2.

3.

4.

CHENG TEN SIONG …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosures 46 and 48)

On 16 October 2025, this Court allowed the Defendant’s application for an Order that the Plaintiff’s action is struck out and stand dismissed due to non-compliance with an earlier Order dated 8-4-

That earlier Order required the Plaintiff to furnish further and better particulars of its the Statement of Claim within 7 days of the Order (“FBP Order”). The Court also struck out the Plaintiff’s pending application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim. 03/11/2025 12:24:20

The Plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal to overturn these decisions. Background facts

In this action, the 1st Defendant (“Stronghold”) had a tenancy agreement where it operated a motorcycle showroom (“Premises”). The core factual disputes in this action revolve around whether Stronghold: a) requested the Plaintiff to take over operations of the service and spare parts arms of Stronghold’s motorcycle dealership (“2S Centre”); b) guaranteed the Plaintiff’s tenure of the Premises to operate the 2S Centre in an agreement to that effect, referred to in the pleading as the Tenure Agreement; and c) entered into sub-tenancy agreements with the Plaintiff on a back-to-back basis with the main tenancy per the Tenure Agreement.

Trial of this action had been scheduled for 6-9 July 2026 and 13-15 July 2026. By consent, this action was to have been heard immediately following the trial of a related suit i.e. Suit No: BA- 22NCvC-75-02/2023, and the evidence recorded in the related suit was agreed to form part of the evidence in this action.

On 8 April 2025, this Court made the FBP Order. The particulars required to be furnished were essentially for: a) the identity of the Stronghold representative who allegedly requested the takeover of the 2S Centre and how the request was communicated; b) the identity of the representatives of the Plaintiff and Stronghold who allegedly made and witnessed the making of the Tenure Agreement and the how, when and where the agreement was allegedly made; and c) the identity of the representatives of the Plaintiff who allegedly communicated the back-to-back basis of the sub-tenancies and the how, when and where of this communication; and the identity of everyone who was party to it (the “Particulars”).

The FBP Order contained the following consequential order for non-compliance: and there was no appeal against it.

Between April 2025 to August 2025, the parties had mutually agreed to extend the time for compliance with the FBP Order. The Defendant says that the final indulgence required the Plaintiff to deliver the Particulars on 4 August 2025. This was not complied with, but was met with a proposed amendment to the Statement of Claim on 6-8- 2025 (“Proposed Amendments”).

On 20 August 2025, the Defendants filed the application to have the action struck out and dismissed according to the FBP Order (“Enclosure 46”) and this was followed by the Plaintiff’s application for leave to amend its Statement of Claim on 22 August 2025 (“Enclosure 48”).

This Court heard Enclosure 46 first. Analysis and findings

In opposing Enclosure 46, the Plaintiff contended that the Particulars would be provided after the Proposed Amendments were allowed, and that the Defendant’s solicitors had agreed to this arrangement. The Plaintiff further argued that some of the Particulars sought had been provided in one form or another.

The Plaintiff’s arguments were unconvincing as there was no plausible reason for withholding the Particulars until after the Proposed Amendments, unless perhaps the Particulars would be incorporated into the Statement of Claim by way of the amendments.

The impression given by the Plaintiff when it associated the furnishing of Particulars ordered in the FBP Order with proposed amendments to the Statement of Claim, was that the Particulars ordered by the FBP Order would be integrated in those amendments. Obviously, this would have been quite unnecessary.

In any event, the Proposed Amendments that the Defendants received on 6 August 2025 for their consent proved anticlimactic. Apart from the identification of three names, no other particulars were furnished or addressed therein.

It therefore cannot be disputed that the Plaintiff has not complied with the FBP Order. The FBP Order required compliance within 7 days of 8-4-2025, but no application was filed to seek a court-ordered extension of time. It was stated unabashedly in the Plaintiff’s affidavit that the Particulars would only be provided after Enclosure 48 is allowed.

As for the Defendant’s alleged acquiescence to this, the filing of Enclosure 46 was a clear indication that this was not the case, or no longer the case. The Particulars should have been immediately furnished to pre-empt the striking out. However, the Plaintiff conscientiously avoided handing over the Particulars sought until the bitter end, thus tying this Court’s hands to allow Enclosure 46.

The attitude and approach of the Plaintiff to the FBP Order were inexplicable as the terms of the FBP Order were explicit and unambiguous. It is trite that the Plaintiff disobeys the FBP Order at its own peril, particularly in the case of a self-executing Order as in this case (Shaik Ali v Shaik Mohamed [1963] 1 MLJ 386; Campbell v Blackwood (1862) 1 M 1 386).

The consequences of the Plaintiff’s inaction are not unprecedented. Particulars served even a day late have resulted in actions being automatically struck off without further order (Pertubohan Berita Nasional v Stephen Kalong Ningkan [1982] 2 MLJ 13). See also Thiruchelvasegaram a/l Manickavasegar v Mahadevi a/p Nadchairam [1998] 4 MLJ 297 and cases cited therein.

As it transpired, neither the delay nor the inadequacy of the Particulars furnished could be satisfactorily explained by the Plaintiff on 16-10-2025 when Enclosure 46 was heard. There was no rational basis for the Plaintiff to insist upon the amendment to the Statement of Claim first before furnishing the Particulars.

Consequently, the Plaintiff’s action was struck out and dismissed and the application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim was thereby rendered academic. Bertarikh : 3 November 2025 Peguam bagi pihak Plaintif: Peter Douglas Ling with Manpreet Sandhu PETER LING & CO. (KUALA LUMPUR) Peguam bagi pihak Defendan: Alvin dev Singh with Soraya Ong