Content
1 SUIT NO.: WA-24NCC-308-07/2024 out in the case of Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 637; [1999] 4 CLJ 533 In that case Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) explained it as follows: It is trite that a person who has a legitimate grievance may invoke other than to obtain a remedy provided by law. It may be to oppress a defendant. Or it may be to apply pressure upon him which the law regards as illegitimate. Or it may be to merely commence an action and let it hang over the head of the abused are varied and numerous, the categories of such cases are therefore not closed. Whether the institution of an action or its continuation or a step taken therein amounts to an abuse of process depends on particular and individual circumstances. it may be struck out or stayed. If it is too late to do this, the party aggrieved may bring an action based upon the tort of abuse of neatly summed up by Lord Denning MR in his dissenting judgment in Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd & Ors [1977] 1 WLR 478, where at p 489 he said: In a civilised society, legal process is the machinery for keeping and doing justice. It can be used properly or it can be abused. It rights or the enforcement of just claims. It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to serve extortion or oppression or to exert pressure so as to achieve an improper end. When it is so abused, it is a tort, a wrong known to the law. The judges can and will intervene to stop it. They will stay the legal process, if they can, before any harm is done. If they cannot stop it in time, and harm is done, they will give damages against the wrongdoer. Though a dissenting judgment, the principle enunciated by the Master of the Rolls has been accepted as authoritative of what co or in equity is used, not the remedy a genuine grievance, but as an instrument of oppression. There have been instances before our courts where an interlocutory injunction has been found to have been used as an instrument of oppression. We have always intervened in such cases and set the matter right.. [25] The foregoing paragraphs explain succinctly the definition of an abuse of process of the court. Applied to the facts of our case, as stated earlier, it is clear that the winding up petitions were filed for a collateral purpose, namely to frustrate firstly, the application for a preservation of assets in Suit 16/3, and secondly, the joint trial of the nine suits in the Kuching High Court.