Back
2024 MarsdenLR 249
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
PERBADANAN BEKALAN AIR PULAU PINANG – Appellant
Versus
PEACE CENTRE – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: PA-24NCVC-392-03-2023]
A matter is unsuitable for summary disposal under O 14A ROC 2012 if there are serious disputes of fact requiring a full trial.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14A - Application for disposal without trial - The court found that the matter was unsuitable for disposal under O 14A due to the presence of serious disputes of fact requiring a full trial. (Paras 6, 28-48)
(B) Dispute of facts - The core issue of land acquisition raised significant factual disputes between parties, necessitating a trial. (Paras 39-41)
(C) Affidavit requirement - The lack of a supporting affidavit was deemed non-prejudicial since parties were aware of the application’s substance. (Paras 32-34)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a licensed water services company, entered into a sale agreement for land with the Defendant, who was the owner. Disputes arose over the compensation awarded following land acquisition, leading the Plaintiff to claim a portion of the compensation received by the Defendant.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the Defendant's application for summary disposal, affirming the need for a full trial due to factual disputes.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the Plaintiff's action was barred by res judicata and whether the matter could be resolved without trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that significant factual disputes existed, making it inappropriate to decide the matter without a trial.
Result: The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] Once proceedings in Court are commenced, it is indisputable that it is in the best interest of all parties that a matter be disposed of expeditiously. To this end, not every dispute necessarily proceeds to trial whereby there are various provisions that allow a Court to decide a matter without a need for trial eg a summary judgment application pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "ROC 2012") or striking out application pursuant to O 18 r 19 ROC 2012 or the utilization of O 33 r 2 ROC 2012. One such mode that is commonly utilized by parties is O 14A ROC 2012 which allows the Court to dispose a case by determining a question of law or construction without a need for a full trial.
[2] In this case, the Plaintiff had originally commenced proceedings by Originating Summons. Upon the filing of the Affidavit in Reply by the Respondent and upon determining that there were material disputes of fact, the Plaintiff had thereafter filed encl 8 pursuant to O 28 r 8 ROC 2012 to have this matter converted to a Writ action. With there being no objection from the Respondent to encl 8, the Court had on 15 August 2023 ordered that the matter be converted to a Writ Action and for parties to file a Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence and the subsequent Reply to the Defence. The parties complied with such directions on the filing of pleadings and the Court subsequently fixed the matter for full trial on the 18th, 19th and 29 November 2024.
[3] However, the Respondent then filed encl 15 which is an application to have this case disposed of pursuant to O 14A ROC 2012 posing therein five questions which they contend would dispose of the matter without the need for a trial. Such application was not supported by an Affidavit in Support but the Defendant instead filed a "Notis Niat Untuk Menggunakan Afidavit" dated 20 October 2024 evincing an intention to rely on an affidavit affirmed earlier in encl 4 filed in opposition to the Originating Summons.
[4] In some situations relating to O 14 ROC 2012 application, when both parties agree that a matter can properly be disposed of on a point of law pursuant to O 14 ROC 2012, the Court may then proceed to determine those questions of law and thereafter make such Order or Judgment as it thinks just.
[5] However, on some occasions, the party responding to such O 14A ROC 2012 application is of the view that the dispute is not suitable to be disposed of on a point of law and that the case should proceed to trial. This was the situation in this case with the Plaintiff contending as such. Parties were then directed to file written submissions wherein the Defendant has submitted that this was a case suitable to be disposed of under O 14A ROC 2012 and sought such an Order with further directions as to the filing of the bundle of documents and statement of agreed facts before proceeding to hear the questions of law. Hence, for the avoidance of doubt, I proceeded to consider encl 15 purely with a view of undertaking the first step of determining whether this matter was suitable to be disposed of under O 14A ROC 2012 and I undertook no exercise to determine the questions itself which would only be a possible second step if I found the matter suitable to be disposed of on a point of law.
[6] Having considered the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, I was of the view that this matter was not suitable to be disposed of pursuant to O 14A ROC 2012 and thus dismissed encl 15 with costs in the cause.
[7] I will now set out the relevant facts of the case and my reasons for dismissing the application.
Background Facts
[8] It is pertinent at the outset to set out the background facts and this can be gleaned from the Statement of Claim and Defence.
Statement Of Claim
[9] Vide the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff's claim can be summarized as follows.
[10] The Plaintiff is a company holding a license under the Water Services Industry Act 2006 whereas
