Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Melaine Stokvis (Malaya) Ltd v Saloma Co [1959] 1 MLJ 241. Parties sues/ defends in person: with his name and
address.
The issue before the is whether or not the writ should be signed Any other case: with the name of rm and its
by counsel. In this case, the writ was a specially endorsed writ. business address.
Held, the omission of the signature of counsel was a fatal
defect. The writ in the present case is a nullity as it was not Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v Kawood Sdn
signed by counsel. Bhd.
Nayar v Gian Sigh & Co Ltd [1970] 1 MLJ 176. Rule 6(4) has no applicability where the statement of
claim edorsed on a writ because it is not a pleading,
While there is no specic rule which provides that amended it is a part of the writ which was endorsed.
pleadings must be signed "it may be safely assumed that Order
18 Rule 6(5) also apply to amended pleadings.
A pleading which does not conform to any of the requirements prescribed by
this rule is irregular and may be set aside, and JID of pleading. The other
party may however waive the iregularity.