Res judicata applies to bar a second suit based on the same cause of action, while allowing related matters to proceed based on differing parties and claims.

[1] There are two related appeals by the appellant (the plaintiff in the court below) against the decision of the learned High court Judge which allowed the striking out applications by the respondents (the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the court below), namely:

(i) Appeal B-02(IM) (NCVC)-143-01-2018 (Appeal 143); and

(ii) Appeal B-02(IM) (NCVC)-396-02-2018 (Appeal 396).

[2] Appeal 143 is in respect of the decision of the learned High court Judge on the 3rd defendant's striking out application, whilst Appeal 396 is in respect of the decision of the learned High court Judge on the 2nd defendant's striking out application. Both appeals originated from a single suit in the High court, namely BA-22NCVC-454-2017, wherein the 2nd and the 3rd defendants filed separate applications to strike out the plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim.

[3] Having perused the Appeal Records and having considered the submissions of both parties, unanimously, we allowed Appeal 396 with costs of RM10,000.00 here and below to be paid to the appellant subject to allocatur and dismissed Appeal 143 with costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid to the respondent here and below subject to allocatur We ordered the matter in Appeal 396 to proceed with full trial in the High court. Herein below are our reasons for deciding so.

[4] Parties will be referred to as they were in the High court.

A. Background

[5] The plaintiff, Metreco Industries Sdn Bhd, owns a property known as Lot PT 36842, HSD 20256, at Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Selangor (the land).

[6] The 3rd defendant is the sole proprietor of Sri Gumut Enterprise.

[7] It is the plaintiff's case that it discovered some excavation works being carried out on the land and there were lorries and machineries on the land. There was a signboard erected on the adjacent plot of land beside the land of the plaintiff which named the 3rd defendant as the contractor responsible for the clearing of the land.

The First Suit

[8] As a result, on 12 February 2015, the plaintiff instituted a suit against the 3rd defendant, namely Shah Alam High court Suit No: 22NCVC-80-02-2015 (the First Suit) for trespass on the land.

[9] In this First Suit, the 3rd defendant was the sole defendant and it was pleaded by the plaintiff in its statement of claim that:

(i) On or about January 2015, the plaintiff discovered that the 3rd defendant, either by himself or through his workers, servants or agents and without the plaintiff's knowledge/consent, had trespassed into the land. It was also alleged that the 3rd defendant, without the plaintiff's consent/knowledge had carried out digging work and removed sand out from the said land (paras 4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim);

(ii) As a result, the plaintiff suffered losses arising from the removal/ extraction of sand and alleged that the 3rd defendant's conduct had caused depreciation in the market value of the land. The plaintiff sought to be compensated for the losses suffered (para 7 of the Statement of Claim);

(iii) There was at the material time a notice board and fence made of zinc plates erected on the land; however the notice board was erected on the land beside the plaintiff's land. The notice board contains the Selangor State emblem with the following words:

"Kerja-Kerja Mencuci Tanah Dan Tapak Semaian Bagi Tujuan Perladangan Dengan Kerjasama Kerajaan Negeri Selangor di kawasan Puchong, Daerah Dengkil, Selangor;

Kontraktor: Sri Gumut Enterprise (00993472-X) No 15B, Jalan Pelabur B 23, Seksyen 23, 40300 Shah Alam Selangor."

(Paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim)

[10] Paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim further states:

"Defendan iaitu kontraktor yang dinamakan di dalam papan tanda tersebut secara sendiri atau melalui pekerja, pengkhidmat, ejennya atau sebaliknya telah menceroboh, menyalahi undang-undang tanah, tidak berkuasa atau tidak berhak untuk membuat kerja-kerja cadangan sedemikian di atas tanah lot milik