The document discusses the law on striking out pleadings in Malaysia. It defines what can be struck out, who can apply, the grounds for an application, and the procedure. A party may apply to strike out all or part of the opposing party's pleadings. Grounds for striking out include if there is no reasonable cause of action or defence, or if the pleadings are scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of court process. The application must be made promptly, preferably before the close of pleadings, and state the specific grounds and order sought.

1. STRIKING OUT PLEADINGS
What - Order 18 Rule 19(1)
A party may apply to strike out either:
(i) the opponent's pleadings, any part of it or
(ii) the plaintiff's indorsement on the writ.
‘Indorsement’ is short paragraph found in the writ (the form) in that para, Pf's COA is described.
Who can Apply- both parties
1. If the Defendant is applying, two possible application, either; apply to strike out the
Plaintiff's indorsement on the writ or apply to strike out the Plaintiff's SOC, either whole
or part of it.
2. If Plaintiff is applying to strike out, only one that is apply to strike out the defendant's
defence, either whole or part of it.
If defendant apply to strike out the Plaintiff's indorsement on the writ, Plaintiff's action will be
dismissed with costs. Once indorsement is struck out, there is no more cause of action (heart
and soul of the action)
Defendant can apply to strike out the whole of SOC - the Plaintiff's action will be dismissed.
If defendant apply to strike out part of SOC - Court will ask the question, is the remainder of the
SOC is sufficient to bring COA against Defendant?
-If answer to that question is yes, the Plaintiff's action will proceed.
-If answer is no, the Plaintiff's claim will be dismissed.
Where the plaintiff apply to strike out the defence;
1. Court strike out whole defence, the Court will give judgment to the Plaintiff.
2. Court strike out part of it, Court must ask question is the reminder of the defence is
enough to sustain as a defence to the plaintiff's claim?- If yes, the remainder is enough,
the case proceed to Court. If no, the Court will grant judgment to the Plaintiff.

2. Procedure (When and How)
When - Order 18 Rule 19
Application may be made at any stage of the proceedings "at any time". However, this has been
qualified by cases.
Cases basically says three things:
i. An application to strike out must be made promptly
ii. An application to strike out must be made without delay
iii. Preferably, the action should be made before the close of pleadings, at an early stage. (14
days after the delivery of the last pleadings)
Case: Jamir Hassan v Kang Min
Party delayed the application to strike out affect the party's chances to succeed.
How to apply to strike out
1. In all interlocutory proceedings, by way of notice of application supported by an
affidavit.
2. Affidavit in support must state precisely which ground the applicant is relying to strike
out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)
3. The application should also state precisely the order which is sought from the Court.
Whether striking out whole or part of the pleadings.
What Grounds - Order 18 Rule 19(1)
(a) No reasonable cause of action/ defence
(b) Pleadings are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
(c) Pleadings will prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial of the action
(d) Pleadings are otherwise an abuse of Court process
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a)
The requirement: On the facts of the pleadings, there is no reasonable cause of action or
defence.
Next question: What amounts to reasonable cause of action or defence?
Reasonable cause of action or defence is this:

3. Cause of action defence with chance of success when the allegation in the pleadings are read
and considered.
To strike out pleadings under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), it must be manifestly clear on the face of
the pleadings that there's no reasonable cause of action or defence.
The applicant cannot lead evidence in the affidavit in support to prove that there is no
reasonable COA or defence.
CASE: LAW V LLEWELLYN
Certain magistrate who in the course of judicial proceedings made some defamatory remarks
about the plaintiff. Plaintiff sued magistrate in defamation. Pleadings clearly showed that the
statement in the course of judicial proceedings, the magistrate was protected by privilege when
he made the statement.
Held: On the face of the pleadings, there was no COA because the Magistrate was protected by
judicial privileged.
CASE: EVANS V LONDON HOSPITAL
A baby was found dead. The pathologist was requested to do a postmortem and the pathologist
reported that he found a large amount of morphin in the baby stomach. Baby's parents were
charged with criminal negligence leading to morphin poisoning. At the trial, the Plaintiff's expert
witness found that there was no morphin in the baby stomach and this point was not disputed
by the prosecution led to baby's parents acquitted of the charge. The baby's parents sued the
pathologist for negligent. Pathologist applied to strike out bcs that when he gave evidence in the
Court he was protected by privileged. There was no cause of action.
Held: The Court agreed that there was no cause of action. Whatever he did he did it to assist the
Court and protected.
CASE: TAIB BIN AWANG
Malicious Prosecution case. Ingredients are not fulfilled. On the face of the pleadings there was
no cause of action and it could be struck out. Clear, manifest on the face of the pleadings.

4. Next point: If Plaintiff is applying under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), a Plaintiff cannot apply to
strike out under (c) and apply for summary judgment in the same application.
CASE: MOHD AZAM SHUJA
P cannot proceed with both prayers for striking off under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) and summary
judgment under Order 14 in one application.
If Plaintiff's Claim barred by limitation, can Defendant apply to strike out under Order 18 Rule
19(1)(a)?
Cannot apply to strike out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), the reason is striking out on the ground
of no COA. The limitation has expired that does not mean that Plaintiff has no COA but his COA
is barred by limitation.
CASE: RONEX PROPERTIES
Limitation does not remove the COA, limitation merely bar the remedies. Def can apply under
Order 18, Rule 19(1)(b) or (d).
Pf's COA is weak and unlikely to succeed?
Not a ground to strike out. Manifestly clear that there's reasonable COA. - Loh Holdings
If you want to strike out, the applicant is not allowed to lead evidence in affidavit of support.
Zakaria bin Mohd Esa. Must be manifestly clear on the face of the pleadings.
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
Scandalous, unpleasant, unnecessary and aiming to insult or embarrass.
CASE: PERTAMINA V KARTIKA RATNA
In this case, there was a Mr Tahir who was a high ranking officer in Pertamina (Indonesian Oil
Company). When Mr Tahir died, he had a large amount of money deposited in Singapore bank.
The plaintiff claim that the money in the bank was obtained through bribery and corruption and
plaintiff was claiming for that money. In response to this, the plaintiff's wife sued the defendant
in which she alleged most of the officers in Pertamina corrupt, not only the officer but the wife
also corrupt. Plaintiff naturally applied to strike out the pleadings on the ground the pleadings
was scandalous and aims to embarrass. Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b). Strike out!

5. Frivolous - useless or petty vexatious - merely to annoy or embarrass.
Where the Plaintiff's claim barred by limitation, Def can apply to strike out on the ground of
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) - frivolous.
Case: Riches v DPP
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(c)
Pleadings may prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial. Pleadings causes prejudice to the other
party. Usually not apply under this ground alone, apply to combine with other ground.
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d)
Abuse Process of Court -where action would be otherwise an abuse of process of Court. This
ground is a wider ground if cannot fall under (a)(b) or (c). Anything.
What is abuse of Court process?
Must not be used for improper purpose and must be used for genuine and bona fide purposes.
Cannot commence action with ulterior motives other than genuine or real purpose.
CASE: RENMINGTON V SCOLES
The def delivered statement of defence. Defendant basically denied everything in the Plaintiff's
statement of claim but make no case of his own, never provide ground of defence. Court was
convinced that a pleading was a lie or a sham. The Court strike out the pleading!
CASE: ANSA TEKNIK
In this case, the Def was a company and Plaintiff apply for summary judgment against Def. The
plaintiff's application was dismissed. After this, plaintiff then applied to winding up the
defendant's company irritated by the decision. No justification for the Plaintiff to apply for
winding up. Merely to embarrass the defendant's company! Winding up advertisment on
newspaper and Court's notice board - serious repercussion on the Defendant.
Res Judicata - You cannot relitigate a matter that already being decided by the Court.
Two things: You cannot relitigate on an issue which has already litigated in a previous case and
you cannot relitigate on an issue which could have or should have been raised in a previous
case.

6. If you are attempting to bring an action which the Court already decided upon or the Court
should have or could have decided but not raise. Strike out - abuse of court process.
Case: Supt of Pudu Prison v Sim Kie Choon
Inherent Jurisdiction
Court has inherent jurisdiction to strike out the matters on its own. Power to order or strike out.
In addition to Order 18 Rule 19, power vested in Court.

7. If you are attempting to bring an action which the Court already decided upon or the Court
should have or could have decided but not raise. Strike out - abuse of court process.
Case: Supt of Pudu Prison v Sim Kie Choon
Inherent Jurisdiction
Court has inherent jurisdiction to strike out the matters on its own. Power to order or strike out.
In addition to Order 18 Rule 19, power vested in Court.