XXXX v Eddie LIM Yu Young (JB-22F-1-11/2025)

JAYDEN LIM MING LER

JESLYN LIM YEE XUAN (NO. K/P:131023-01-1918) ...PLAINTIFF'S AND EDDIE LIM YU YONG (NO. K.P: 830129-01-6293) ...DEFENDANT GROUND OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is the Defendant's application pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012") to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim dated 21.11.2025. [2] The Defendant seeks, inter alia, the following orders:- a) bahawa Writ bertarikh 21.11.2025 dan Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 21.11.2025 bagi tindakan ini dibatalkan; b) kos atas dasar peguam-klien dibayar secara peribadi oleh SIA KENG SHAN (No. K/P: 851101-01-5902) kepada Defendan; dan c) relif-relif lain yang difikir suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [3] The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' action is unsustainable on the grounds, inter alia, that: a) the Plaintiffs lack locus standi and capacity; b) the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action; and c) the subject matter is res judicata. [4] The Plaintiffs are minors and are the children of the Defendant and one Sia Keng Shan ("SKS"). [5] The Plaintiffs commenced this action through SKS as their purported guardian ad litem claiming that the Defendant had failed to provide adequate maintenance. [6] It is not disputed that: a) the Defendant and SKS were previously married but are now divorced; and b) issues relating to maintenance had been addressed in prior matrimonial proceedings, including a decree nisi and subsequent court orders. [7] The Defendant filed the present striking out application on the basis that the Plaintiffs' claim is legally untenable and constitutes an abuse of process. Issues for Determination [8] The issues for determination are as follows: a) Whether the Plaintiffs have the requisite locus standi and capacity to commence this action; b) Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action; c) Whether the Plaintiffs' claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and d) Whether this is a plain and obvious case warranting striking out under Order 18 rule 19 of the ROC 2012. Applicable Legal Principles Order 18 Rule 19 of the ROC 2012 [9] The principles governing striking out are well settled. The court may strike out pleadings where they are plainly and obviously unsustainable. [10] In Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction must be exercised only in "plain and obvious cases" and not upon a minute examination of facts. This can be seen as follows: The principles upon which the court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19(1) of the RHC are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule (per Lindley MR in Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7, and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it 'obviously unsustainable' (see AG of Duchy of Lancaster v L & NW Rly Co 8). It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence (see Wenlock v Moloney & Ors 9). The authorities further show that if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for argument under O 33 r 3 (which is in pari materia with our O 33 r 2 of the RHC) (see Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7). The court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the defences raised are not arguable. [11] Similarly, in See Thong & Anor v Saw Beng Chong [2013] 3 MLJ 235, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the court may rely on any limb of Order 18 rule 19(1) of the ROC 2012, subject to the applicable evidential limitations. Locus Standi [12] Locus standi is a threshold issue which goes to jurisdiction. [13] In Shahidan Shafie V. Atlan Holdings Bhd & Anor & Other Appeals [2005] 3 CLJ 793, the Court of Appeal held that absence of standing renders the action liable to fail in limine. The relevant passage reads as follows :- "... Before I move to the second issue there is a proposition central to the determination of locus standi. It is this. When determining whether a particular plaintiff has locus standi in a given set of circumstances the court must consider the action in two stages. At the first stage ("the threshold stage") assume that the fact pattern asserted by the plaintiff is true. It is just like a case of striking out a pleading for want of a cause of action or defence under RHC O.18 r.19(1)(a) where the court is confined to the pleading and not to extrinsic matters. It does not matter whether the plaintiff may ultimately fail in his action on the merits. Failure or success must be considered at the second stage ("the merits stage"). If a plaintiff is found to lack standing to sue then his action fails in limine at the threshold stage and there is no inquiry into the merits of the given case. [14] Likewise, in Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Bhd V Augusto Pompeo Romei [2014] 3 MLJ 672, it was held that the court has no jurisdiction where a party lacks standing. The court stated as follows:- [25] Where a party does not have the locus standi to bring an action, the court will not have the jurisdiction to determine the issue. In the case of Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 719; [1995] 3 CLJ 520, the Court of Appeal held as follows: Viewed from this standpoint, the justice of a case will ordinarily lie in favour of permitting a plea of illegality to be taken for the first time on appeal because it is unjust that a party who has broken the law should succeed. Similarly, justice would, in the usual way, favour the admission of a point that goes to the jurisdiction of the trial court because neither consent nor waiver may confer jurisdiction where none exists: and it is not in the interests of justice that a judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction should be permitted to stand. Res Judicata [15] The doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of issues already decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. [16] In Jan De Nul (M) Bhd v Berjaya Sompo Insurance Bhd [2018] 12 MLJ 800, the High Court held that parties cannot invite the court to decide the same issue again. The court made the following observation: [44] The application of the principle of res judicata is thus fully justified. The issues to be decided in this instant suit have been adjudicated and determined earlier in the arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff cannot ask this court to decide on the same issues again. The application to set aside the final award too had been dismissed by the High Court, and there is no appeal against the decision of the High Court. This court should not be put in an embarrassing position of having to make a decision on a matter already determined by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, and risk rendering a judgment inconsistent with the findings of the final award. An efficient, just and orderly legal system respects the finality of decisions and judgments. Otherwise, confusion may reign, more so when a re-litigation of the same issues, requiring the examination of substantially the same evidence and witnesses would also cause unnecessary wastage of time and resources. [17] In Sungai Dinar Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Pekebun Kecil Wilayah Johor Selatan Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 823, the Court of Appeal held that where the causes of action and issues are identical, the subsequent action must be struck out. Analysis and Findings Issue 1: Locus Standi and Capacity [18] The Plaintiffs, being minors, must act through a properly appointed litigation representative in compliance with Order 76 of the ROC 2012. [19] The evidence shows that no court order was obtained appointing SKS as litigation representative, and the requisite Forms 188 and 189 were not filed. [20] In the absence of compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, the Plaintiffs lack capacity to institute the present action. [21] This defect is not merely procedural but jurisdictional in nature. [22] I therefore find that the Plaintiffs lack locus standi and capacity to commence this action. Issue 2: Reasonable Cause of Action [23] The Plaintiffs' claim is premised on alleged failure by the Defendant to provide maintenance. [24] However, it is expressly pleaded that: a) the parents are divorced; and b) the mother is responsible for the children's maintenance. [25] More importantly, maintenance arrangements had already been determined and recorded in prior court orders. [26] The present claim is, in substance, an attempt to revisit those arrangements. [27] On the face of the pleadings, I find that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is legally unsustainable. Issue 3: Res Judicata [28] The evidence establishes that the issue of maintenance had been determined: a) during the decree nisi; and b) in subsequent proceedings culminating in a final order. [29] The Plaintiffs do not deny that the issues raised herein are identical to those previously adjudicated. [30] Applying the principles in Jan De Nul (Supra) and Sungai Dinar (Supra), the present action is clearly barred by res judicata. [31] The Plaintiffs cannot circumvent final court orders by instituting fresh proceedings through the children. Issue 4: Abuse of Process [32] The present action represents a collateral attack on final matrimonial orders. [33] The court must guard against attempts to reopen concluded litigation under the guise of fresh proceedings. [34] I agree with the Defendant that permitting such actions would undermine the principle of finality and open the floodgates to repetitive litigation. [35] Accordingly, this action amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. Conclusion [36] Having considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions of parties, I find that: a) the Plaintiffs lack locus standi and capacity; b) the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action; c) the action is barred by res judicata; and d) the action constitutes an abuse of process. [37] This is a plain and obvious case falling squarely within Order 18 rule 19 of the ROC 2012. [38] Hence, the Defendant's application is hereby allowed with RM3,000 costs awarded to the Defendant. DATED ON 13th APRIL 2026 YA DATUK ZAMRI BIN BAKAR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER Plaintiff's Counsel: MERSS CT CHEW & CO. Defendant's Counsel: