The principle of res judicata does not apply when the cause of action is different and not previously decided.

Background

[1] The Plaintiff was given a right by the 1st Defendant to carry out logging activities at the Hutan Simpan Bukit Gading and Bukit Belata for an approximate area of 9000 hectares. The approval for the logging activity was contained in a letter of approval issued by the 1st Defendant on 30 September 1999 containing various terms and conditions. This terms and conditions were accepted by the Plaintiff who commenced the logging activities.

[2] No formal agreement was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants although the parties exchanged draft formal agreements, the final Draft Formal Agreement was vide the 1st Defendant's letter dated 10 May 2003.

[3] A dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants arose when the Defendants directed the Plaintiff by way of a letter dated 5 October 2005 to cease logging operation in 5 compartments at Hutan Simpan Gading. The Plaintiff was nevertheless given a choice to choose alternative areas to replace the existing areas.

[4] Both parties could not agree on the alternative site for the logging and on the failure of the Defendants in replacing the existing area agreed upon, prompted the Plaintiff to commence a civil suit in the Shah Alam High Court against the Defendants for a breach of the logging contract.

[5] The High Court decided against the Defendants contention that there was no binding agreement between the parties, by making a finding that the letter of approval dated 30 September 1999 and the final Draft Formal Agreement amounted to a valid and binding logging contract.

[6] The Plaintiff's claim for damages was nevertheless dismissed as the Court decided that the Defendants had not terminated the logging contract. The Plaintiff appealed against the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful.

[7] Subsequently the 1st Defendant by way of letter dated 27 April 2015 to the Plaintiff under the instructions of the 2nd Defendant withdrew and terminated the letter of approval dated 30 September 1999 pursuant to para (j).

[8] This again prompted the Plaintiff to commence an action against the Defendants this time by way of Originating Summons before me.

The Plaintiff's Originating Summons

[9] The Plaintiff by way of this Originating Summons sought a declaration that the letter dated 27 April 2015 by the 1st Defendant amounts to a termination of the logging contract as contained in the letter of approval of the 1st Defendant dated 30 September 99 and the final Draft Formal Agreement by way of the Defendant's letter dated 10 May 2003.

[10] The Plaintiff also asked for damages to be assessed by an order appointing an independent Valuer to be agreed by the parties failing which to be appointed by the Court.

The Issues Before The Court

[11] 2 issues can be short listed in this case for the determination of the Court. The first relates to the contention of the Defendants that the principle of res judicata applies in this case as the claim for damages by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for breach of contract had already been decided in the High Court and which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The second issue is the determination as to what is the consequence of the letter of termination by the Defendants under condition (j) of the letter of approval.

The Decision Of The Court

[12] An understanding of the principle of res judicata si best gathered from the Federal Court case of Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd, 1995 MarsdenLR 1135 . The Federal Court in this case enunciated clearly the scope of the plea of res judicata as fo