Back
2022 MarsdenLR 471
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
KRISHNASAMY KUPPUSAMY & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH HOSPITAL SULTANAH AMINAH JOHOR BAHRU & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JA-21NCvC-25-09/2020]
Suits against public authorities must be filed within thirty-six months as per the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, or they are time-barred.
Headnote:(A) Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 – Time Bar – The court struck out the appellant's suit as time-barred under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, which requires that a suit must be filed within thirty-six months of the act or neglect complained of – The writs were filed years later, on 2 September 2020, following an incident on 25 October 2016. (Paras [1], [2])
(B)
Striking Out Pleadings – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 r 19 – The court is empowered to strike out pleadings if they disclose no reasonable cause of action, are scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, or would cause abuse of court processes – The court exercised its discretion to strike out based on these grounds. (Paras [3], [5])
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a decision to strike out cases relating to a fire at Sultanah Aminah Hospital due to a time bar under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948.
Findings of Court:
The suits were definitively time-barred, warranting their dismissal.
Issues
: The crux of the matter was whether the claims were brought within the prescribed limitations.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court reaffirmed that actions must be timely to ensure fair judicial processes, in line with the statutory requirements outlined in the Public Authorities Protection Act.
Result:
The suits were struck out with costs. (Paras [5], [6])
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against my decision to strike out the cases under O 18 r 19 of the ROC 2012 upon application made by the respondents. The suits arose like the proverbial out of a fire that happened in the SultanahAminahHospitalJohorBahru on 25 October 2016. However the writs were only filed in court on 2 September 2020. The main or essential reason for striking out the cases is that the suits are time barred under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 .
The Law
[2] B1. The Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (Act 198) provides:
Protection of persons acting in execution of statutory or other public duty
2. Where, after the coming into force of this Act, any suit, action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced in the Federation against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any written law or of any public duty or authority or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such written law, duty or authority the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) the suit, action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within thirty-six months next after the act, neglect or default complained of or, in the case of a continuance of injury or damage, within thirty-six months next after the ceasing thereof;
[3] The Rules of 2012 states:
Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O 18 r 19)
19. -(1) 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:
1. (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;
2. (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;
3. (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or
4. (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.
(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a).
(3) This rule shall, as far as applicable, apply to an originating summons as if it were a pleading.
[4] The Malaysian Civil Procedure (White Book) 2018 edition provides:
"Effect of rule - A defendant is entitled to ask ex debito justitae to have the plaintiff's case presented in an intelligible form, so that he will not be embarrassed in meeting it: per James LJ in Davy v. Garrett [1878] 7 ChD 473, CA (Eng), at 486; Wharf Properties Ltd & Anor v. Eric Cumine Associates [1991] 2 HKLR 154.
It is not designed as a mechanism for the defendant to force a preliminary hearing on the merits, but is rather aimed at culling actions in plain and obvious cases, ie where there is no reasonable cause of action, to avoid an unnecessary trial or if the claim is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of court process, or if the defence is unarguable. The power of the courts under the four grounds of this rule is exercised when it can clearly be seen that a claim or answer is prima facie obviously unsustainable (see Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v. United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd, [1993] 3 MLJ 36; Cepatwawasan Group Bhd & Anor v. Tengku Dato' Kamal Ibni Sultan Sir Abu Bakar & 17 Ors, [2008] 2 MLJ 915; Linde Gas Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Pasifik Utama Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2011] 5 CLJ 40; Metroplex Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Commerce International Merchants Bankers Bhd; [2013] 4 MLJ 520; [2013] 8 CLJ 329; [2013] 3 AMR 782; Lifomax Woodbuild Sdn Bhd v. Ng Yee Teck, CA. The courts' power under this rule applies to conspicuously unsustainable cases and is exercised sparingly by the courts (Affin Bank Bhd v. Eye Bee Sdn Bhd; [2005] 7 MLJ 1; MK Associates Sdn Bhd v. Tetuan Ganesan K & Muhammad Ashri (sued as a firm); [2012] 7 MLJ 583).
What can be struck out is any pleading or the endorsement to any writ (Re Bartlett & Berry's Contract (1887) 76 LT 751). The writ itself cannot be struck
