1. ) VIKNEIS A/L BALAN (SEORANG PESAKIT MENDAKWA MELALUI BALAN A/L VARATHARAJOO SEBAGAI WAKIL LITIGASI/SAHABAT WAKIL) 2. ) BALAN A/L VARATHARAJOO v TETUAN NM TIONG & CO

pa-12ancvc-31-09-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 19 June 2025 • PA-12ANCvC-31-09/2024 • 10 min read

2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

In a Summary Judgement application, it is trite law that the principles governing O.14 ROC 2012 are well-established, permitting summary judgment only in cases where there is no defence or where the issues are plain and obvious. Summary Judgment ought to not be entered in cases where there are material disputes of fact or law that require a trial to resolve. This is well elaborated in the precedent case of BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA V MOHD ISMAIL [1992] 1 MLJ 400. Having considered the submissions of both parties, the main issues for determination are: (i) whether the Plaintiff’s action was maintainable in light of Section 124 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”); (ii) whether the Defendants are absolutely barred by Section 128(2) LPA from challenging the Bill of Costs, or whether “special circumstances” exist; and (iii) whether the learned SCJ was correct in awarding interest and in holding that there were no triable issues.

Judges (1)

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (5)

Jega Kumar & Partners Firm N M Tiong & Co Firm K. Saravana Kumar Counsel Appellant Nur Fadhilah Azizan Counsel Appellant Tiong Hou Yuen Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

TETUAN NM TIONG & CO Respondent Balan a/l Varatharajoo Appellant Vikneis a/l Balan Appellant

Statutes Cited

Civil Law Act 1956

s 11

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)

[1992] 1 MLJ 400 [2021] 6 MLJ 464

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-12ancvc-31-09-2024)