When Can You Appeal a Striking-Out Dismissal in Malaysia?
Introduction
The Federal Court decision in MT Ventures Sdn Bhd & Anor v QM Print Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal is one of those cases that significantly reshapes litigation practice in Malaysia, even though it deals with what appears to be a technical procedural issue.
At its core, the case addresses a simple but critical question: can you appeal when your striking-out application is dismissed?
Following the 2022 amendments to section 68(1)(f) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA), many assumed the answer was a strict “no.” The Federal Court, however, took a more practical and fair approach — one that focuses on whether a party’s rights have actually been affected in a meaningful way.
What Actually Happened
The MT Ventures dispute
This case arose from a fire that damaged a factory. The respondent brought a claim for damages, alleging that the fire originated from the appellants’ premises.
The appellants attempted to strike out parts of the claim, arguing that certain portions should not proceed to trial. The High Court dismissed the application.
When the appellants appealed, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal outright, relying on section 68(1)(f), which appeared to prohibit such appeals.
The Azinal dispute
The second appeal involved a complex family dispute over shares and land. The appellant argued that the claim should be struck out because the issues had already been decided in earlier proceedings (res judicata).
Again, the High Court dismissed the striking-out application.
Again, the appellant appealed.
And again, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal on the basis that it was not appealable.
The Real Question Before the Federal Court
The Federal Court was not concerned with whether the striking-out applications should succeed.
Instead, the real issue was this:
Does section 68(1)(f) completely block all appeals against dismissals of striking-out applications?
If that were the case, parties would be forced to go through full trials even when there are strong legal arguments that the case should never proceed in the first place.
What the Federal Court Decided
The Federal Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal and reinstated both appeals to be heard on their merits.
More importantly, the court clarified that:
- Section 68(1)(f) is not an absolute bar
- The provision must be read together with other parts of the CJA
- The key question is whether the decision has effectively determined the parties’ rights
This shifts the focus away from rigid technical rules and toward the actual impact of the decision.
The Core Idea: “Final Disposal of Rights”
The Federal Court introduced a practical way to approach the issue.
Instead of asking whether the decision falls within section 68(1)(f), the correct question is:
Did the dismissal effectively decide something important and final?
A decision amounts to a “final disposal of rights” when:
- It resolves a key legal issue
- That issue is central to the dispute
- The party suffers real and irreversible prejudice if the decision is left unchallenged
If these elements are present, an appeal should be allowed — even if the decision arose from a striking-out application.
Why a Strict Reading Was Rejected
On a literal reading, section 68(1)(f) seems clear — no appeal is allowed when a striking-out application is dismissed.
However, the Federal Court highlighted the practical consequences of such an approach:
- Cases with no legal basis may still proceed to full trial
- Parties incur unnecessary costs and delays
- Courts become burdened with avoidable proceedings
The court concluded that this could not have been Parliament’s intention.
Instead, the law must be interpreted in a way that promotes efficiency and fairness, rather than mechanical application.
How the Law Fits Together
A key part of the decision is understanding how different provisions of the CJA interact:
- Section 67 provides a general right of appeal
- Section 3 defines what types of decisions are appealable
- Section 68 sets out limited exceptions
These provisions must be read together as a coherent framework.
Section 68(1)(f) cannot be used to completely remove appeal rights, especially where a decision has already determined an important issue affecting the parties.
A Practical Distinction
The Federal Court drew a clear and useful distinction:
Not appealable
Where the dismissal simply means that more evidence is needed and the matter should proceed to trial.
Appealable
Where the dismissal effectively determines a legal issue that impacts the parties’ rights immediately.
This distinction is crucial for litigation strategy.
The Legal Effect
1. Striking-out applications remain important
Striking-out applications continue to be a powerful tool, especially when dealing with:
- Jurisdictional issues
- Locus standi
- Res judicata
- Legal defects in pleadings
If these issues are decisive, they may still give rise to an appeal if dismissed.
2. Framing is now critical
Lawyers must now go beyond simply arguing that a claim should be struck out.
They should emphasise:
- That the issue is purely legal
- That it can be decided without a full trial
- That failure to decide it early would cause prejudice
A well-framed argument increases the chances that the decision will be considered appealable.
3. Reduced risk of unnecessary trials
Previously, there was a real concern that parties would be forced into lengthy trials even when the case could be disposed of early.
This decision helps to prevent that by allowing appeals in appropriate cases.
4. A balanced approach
The law still discourages unnecessary interlocutory appeals.
However, it now recognises that where a decision has real consequences, parties should not be denied the opportunity to challenge it immediately.
A Brief Critical View
Overall, this decision restores balance and common sense to procedural law.
It avoids an overly rigid interpretation and ensures that justice is not sacrificed for procedural efficiency.
That said, there may still be disputes over what qualifies as a “final disposal of rights.” Not every case will be straightforward.
But this is a reasonable trade-off compared to a blanket prohibition on appeals.
Conclusion
The Federal Court in MT Ventures v QM Print has made it clear that not all dismissals of striking-out applications are beyond appeal.
The key question is whether the decision has effectively determined the parties’ rights in a final and meaningful way.
If it has, the right to appeal remains intact.
Written on: 24th March 2026
Contact JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors to make an appointment today!
🌐 Call us: +6017.6965.966 (Call / WhatsApp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!