HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
AKHTAR TAHIR J
GUAMAN NO WA-22NCVC-88-02/2020
3 February 2021
JudgmentIntroduction
[1] The 2nd and 4th Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Court Rules 2012 (“the Rules 2012”).The Plaintiff’s Claim
[2] The Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd and 4th Defendants was principally for a breach of fiduciary duties as Directors of the Plaintiff by entering into a lopsided, untenable and fraudulent agreement with the 1st Defendant as well as 2 other supplementary agreements with 3rd parties.
[3] The Plaintiff was appointed by the Government of Malaysia to register and manage the intake of foreign students to the local Institutes of Learning.
[4] For this purpose the Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the 1st Defendant who had professed to have an expertise in undertaking the project.
[5] As a result of the agreement executed with the 1st Defendant not only the Plaintiff but the Treasury of Malaysia and the Government of Malaysia had suffered financial losses as well as loss of opportunities under the project.The Grounds of the 2nd Defendant’s Application
[6] The alleged breach of fiduciary duties are alleged to have taken place before the execution of the agreement with the 1st Defendant which was executed on 1/11/2012 and as this claim was only filed in 2020 it is time barred as any claim for breach of contract is limited to 6 years.
[7] The allegation of fraud and breach of duties have not been particularized.
[8] In a judicial review proceedings in Kuala Lumpur High Court under the suit number 25-04-2013 the Plaintiff had taken a stand that the agreement with the 1st Defendant was valid and enforceable and therefore he is now estopped from questioning the validity of the agreement.The Grounds of the 4th Defendant’s Application
[9] There is no cause of action against the 4th Defendant as he was only appointed on the date of execution of the agreement and therefore had not taken part in any negotiations of the agreement.
[10] In the judicial review proceeding in the High Court the Plaintiff had taken a stand to support the agreement with the 1st Defendant and therefore the Plaintiff is now estopped from declaring the agreement as invalid.
[11] The Plaintiff’s claim is time barred for the same reasons raised by the 2nd Defendant.
[12] The Plaintiff has no locus standi to bring this proceedings on behalf of the Treasury and the Government of Malaysia.
[13] The Statement of Claim lacks particulars especially on the allegation of breach of fiduciary duties.