A claim based on an oral contract regarding public infrastructure must demonstrate proper statutory compliance and adequate particulars to avoid being struck out.

[1] The Plaintiff is the owner and developer of a few Lots of Land namely Lots 38026, 38028, 38029, 38031, 38032, 38033 and 38034 in the Mukim of Petaling, Daerah Kuala Lumpur (collectively, the "Land"). They claimed that the First Defendant ("D1"), Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd ("T") had represented to them that a railway line linking Sungei Buloh to Putrajaya ("SSP Line") would pass through and that a station would be built on part of their Land.

[2] MRT is a body corporate wholly-owned by the Minister of Finance Incorporated which is in turn wholly-owned by the Ministry of Finance. The Plaintiff contended that an oral contract had come into being with respect to a station being built on part of their Land with respect to the SSP Line and that the Plaintiff had agreed not to challenge the compulsory acquisition of portion of its Land by D1 for the Sungai Buloh-Kajang Line ("SBK Line").

Problem

[3] Under the oral contract the Plaintiff said that they had inter alia agreed to withdraw their appeal to the Court of Appeal against a judicial review application on the portion of the Land compulsorily acquired where the High Court has dismissed their leave application to quash the compulsory acquisition order. There was further a land swap with Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur ("DBKL") and an agreement that the Plaintiff, MRT and Mayland Century Sdn Bhd would bear the costs in equal shares of the construction of a slip road that would connect the proposed Multi Storey Park & Ride facility for SBK Line on the said Land to a plot of land that was adjacent to it.

[4] However it was later discovered that the SSP Line would not be passing through their Land and neither would a Station be built on their Land and that the SSP Line would pass through Bandar Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur instead.

Pleadings

[5] The Plaintiff sued D1 for damages for misrepresentation, breach of contract and negligence. D1's Defence is that there was no such oral contract as pleaded by the Plaintiff with respect to the SSP Line and that the agreement was with respect to the SBK Line. Alternatively even if there was such an oral contract as pleaded between the Plaintiff and D1 with respect to the SSP Line, that has to be conditional upon the approval by the Second Defendant ("D2") who is the Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat ("SPAD") and the consent of the Third Defendant ("D3") Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Najib Tun Haji Abdul Razak ("the Minister") as the Minister designated under the Land Public Transport Act 2010 (" LPTA ") and the Land Public Transport Commission Act 2010 ("LPTCA") more popularly known as the SPAD Act.

[6] The Plaintiff also sued D2, D3 and the Fourth Defendant ("D4"), MMC Gamuda KVT (PDP) Sdn Bhd ("MMC Gamuda") for damages for inducement for breach of contract.

[7] D2 and D3 denied that they were liable for inducing the breach of contract and pleaded in their Defences filed that they were performing their statutory duties under the LPTA and LPTCA and further that it has not been alleged that there had been mala fide in their discharge of their statutory duties. D3 further stated that the proper recourse for the Plaintiff's grievance, if indeed there was one, should be by way of judicial review.

[8] D4 took