Civil Proceeding cases Strike out the statement of claim, stay out of proceedings

1. Summary of Cases
Abdul Wahab bin Jumrah

2. Abdul Majeed v Dato’
Sulaiman

3. • Parties
• Plaintif – Abdul Majeed has an agreement with the defendant
for the sale of house(premise). He wanted to enforce the
agreement pursuant to the defendant’s promise to sell the
other premises to him.
• Defendant – Dato’ Sulaiman delay to sell the premises to
plaintiff due to inevitable issues(such as to develop the
property), but promise to rent it to Abdul Majeed for 30 years
if the SPA doesn’t materialize.

4. • Issues
• 1.Whether the plaintiff’s statement of claim could be striked
out?
• 2.Whether he can enforce the agreement made between him
and defendant?

5. • Judgment
• 1. The Court held to dismiss the statement of claim made by
the Plaintiff as it seems the plaintiff acted mala fide towards
the defendant. The statement of claim is vexatious and
frivolous. The plaintiff clearly attempts to frustrate the
defendant to develop the property.
• 2. The plaintiff can’t enforce the agreement made as his action
only happen eleventh hour. After 10 years of agreement the
plaintiff never enforce the agreement made. Thus this action
was vexatious and malicious.

6. The Fuji Hoshimaru,
United Asian Bank v
M/V Fuji Hoshimaru
Ors

7. • Parties
• Plaintiff – United Asian Bank act as indorsee to the bill of
lading, an export of goods carriage from Butterworth to
Penang. It was delivered to the wrong person not in the
possession of bill of lading.
• Defendant – The vessel who bring the goods carriage.

8. • Summary
• The case was brought to the attention of the court as the
plaintiff serves the writ for the negligence of defendant. The
defendant then sought to stay out of the proceeding.

9. • Issues raised by the Plaintiff
• 1.Negligence for the carriage of good that supposed to be
delivered
• 2.The goods delivered subsequently was authorized by the
person who is not in the possession of the bill of lading

10. • Issues raised by the defendant(who asking for the stay out of
proceeding)
• 1.Whether the arrest of Japanese vessel in the territorial of
water is valid?
• 2.Whether the bill of lading authorization by the person who
not in possession fall within the term of charterparty?
Because if it yes, the matter shouldn’t be proceed in the
Court, but before the Arbitrator.

11. • Judgment
• 1.The High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case as the
vessel fall within the jurisdiction of Malaysia. The Court rely on
the Section 24(b) of Courts of Judicature Act on the admiralty
cases
• 2.The Court held the bill of lading does not constitute to the
term of charterparty. Thus the term do not lead to the
arbitration clauses.
• The Court dismissed the defense by the defendant at cost.