Pleadings serve a critical purpose: they define the issues in dispute, inform the parties of the case they must meet, and enable them to prepare accordingly. Each party has the right to present the material facts supporting their claim or defence.
Under Order 18 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012, a party is deemed to admit any factual allegation raised in a statement of claim unless it is traversed in their pleading or through a joinder of issue. This raises an important question: Is a bare denial sufficient to traverse an allegation?
Consider the following example:
“Paragraph x of the [pleading] is denied and the [party] is put to strict proof thereof.”
This style of pleading has grown increasingly popular in recent years. At first glance, it seems to place the burden of proof firmly (strictly) upon the asserting party. However, it offers no substantive basis for the denial—no particulars, no reasons and no alternative case.
Whilst the general public may deem this advantageous, this approach is often counterproductive and has been consistently criticised by the courts.
Lim Boon Hai v MLF Ingredients Sdn Bhd and anor, Civil Suit No.: JA-22NCC-60-12/2022
The case of Lim Boon Hai pertains to the Plaintiff’s writ action against two Defendants. This was not the first dispute between the parties. The Plaintiff had previously initiated several suits concerning corporate dispute related to the 1st Defendant company (see: Civil Suits No.: JA-24NCC-3-03/2022 & JA-22NCC-31-07/2022).
In the present suit, the Plaintiff had filed a writ and statement of claim against the Defendants seeking, amongst others, declarations in relation to the Plaintiff’s shareholding. The Defendants filed their defence and counterclaim in response.
The Plaintiff subsequently applied to strike out the Defendants’ defence, under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable defence.
For completeness, Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 stipulates:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be and may order the action to be stayed
or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.” (emphasis added)
It is worth noting that the Defendants’ defence, spanning 11 paragraphs, consisted predominantly of the following style of pleading:
“Kandungan perenggan ... Pernyataan Tuntutan dinafikan dan Plaintif is put to strict proof (The contents of paragraphs … of the Statement of Claim are denied and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof).”
In this regard, the High Court observed that the Defendants had proffered no explanation to substantiate the denials in their defence, although they argued that explanations were included in their counterclaim.
Despite this argument, the High Court determined that the Defendants’ defence amounted to nothing more than bare denials. It held that such pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action or defence.
The High Court emphasised that pleadings which did not disclose any defence ought to be struck out. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s striking out application and struck out the Defendants’ defence in its entirety.
In reaching its conclusion, the High Court referred to the following cases:
(a) Tan Hock Chan v Kho Teck Seng [1980] 1 MLJ 308, where the Federal Court held:
“In paragraph 2 of the statement of defence, the developer stated that he did “not admit owing the plaintiff the sum of $71,562 or at all”. This denial was followed immediately by these words “and subject the plaintiff to strict proof thereof”. What is meant by these words is not easily discerned. The requirement of strict proof which we believe occurs with monotonous regularity, is not one founded on the law of evidence as laid out in the Evidence Act, 1950.” (emphasis added)
(b) Gerard Jude Timothy Pereira v Kasi a/l KL Palaniappan [2017] MLJU 925, where the Court of Appeal held:
“We entirely agreed with the finding of the learned trial judge on this issue. As has been held in a number of case law authorities a general plea “that the Plaintiff’s claim is denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof” is not a sufficient traverse of the Plaintiff’s claim. These authorities also show the need to adhere strictly to the rule relating to pleading, the failure of which would attract serious consequences.” (emphasis added)
(c) Gazzriz Sdn Bhd v Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 2066, where the High Court held:
“[14] Let me deal with the issue of whether a general denial is sufficient to constitute a traverse to the plaintiff's claim. I have gone through the Defence and take cognisance that the words “menghendaki Plaintif membuktikannya dengan tepat dan kukuh” appeared at least 5 times in the 9 paragraphs. In my considered opinion, putting the plaintiff to strict proof thereof without condensing into particulars would amount to nothing more than a bare denial.” (emphasis added)
Analysis
Lim Boon Hai serves as a timely reminder to litigants and solicitors alike: strict adherence to the rules of pleadings is paramount.
A bare denial, even when accompanied by a “strict proof” statement, adds little to no value to a litigant’s pleading. As Dato’ Abdul Wahab Patail JCA aptly observed in Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd v MCI Bio Tech Sdn Bhd [2013] 6 MLJ 537, “Putting a party to strict proof does not affect the standard of proof, which in civil claims, is proof upon balance of probabilities”.
Proper pleadings are not merely a procedural formality—they are essential to safeguarding litigants’ rights and ensuring fair and efficient dispute resolution.
Conclusion
In light of Lim Boon Hai, litigants and their legal representatives must ensure that defences are substantiated with clear, specific and meaningful particulars. It is beyond dispute that bare denials and generic “strict proof” statements are insufficient to meet the standards of proper pleading.
By adhering to these principles, parties can avoid the pitfalls of having their pleadings struck out and, more importantly, contribute to a more efficient and just resolution of disputes. This not only benefits the parties but also serves to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
17 February 2025