JCW

[Striking Out – Res Judicata] Justin was counsel for the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant filed a striking out application due to a similar Suit 567 taken commenced by the 1st Defendant (as the plaintiff there) against another party and the Plaintiff (as the 2nd defendant there). The Court held amongst others as follows : - It is trite law that a claim should not be struck out save in exceptional circumstances where, for instance, it was without any sustainable basis or had no prospect at all of success. The strength or weakness of the claim was not a relevant factor. - In Suit 567 it was alleged that the first defendant had purportedly acted ultra vires. It was noteworthy that the present suit and Suit 567 clearly involved the same set of facts. It is indisputable that the aforesaid allegation was considered and disposed of by the court in Suit 567. It was evident from the learned judge’s grounds of judgment that all relevant issues and the disputes between the parties were litigated and adjudicated in Suit 567. Thus, as the issue of ultra vires had already been fully litigated and disposed of in Suit 567, the plaintiff was now estopped from re-litigating the same issues or any other issues which were covered in Suit 567. - Although there may be several issues that may be considered different and the plaintiff had in the present case prayed for a different reliefs/orders, it was trite law that the principle of res judicata has, on the law as it stood, wide application and implications that would operate in the present scenario in the wider sense. Both suits shared the same set of facts, subject[2020] 8 MLJ 305 at 306matter and the same primary questions of law that have been litigated and adjudicated by the High Court whose decision had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Hence, the plaintiff would be barred from regurgitating and relitigating the issues that were essentially the same (see para 31).