The splitting of claims into public and private law facets from a single grievance is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of process.

[1] This is an appeal by the Malaysian Medical Council ('the MMC') and Prof. Dato' Dr Wan Mohamed Bebakar ('the Professor') in respect of an application to amend a re-amended statement of claim in Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-51-02-2014 ('Suit No 51'). Suit No 51 was commenced by Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd ('APHL') which owns Lincoln University College. The Professor was sued as the second defendant as he is a member of the MMC, the first defendant, and was the chairman of the accreditation panel which visited Lincoln University College in May 2011 and in April 2013. The facts are not in dispute and are set out below.

The Salient Facts

[2] On 6 February 2014, APHL commenced two actions, namely:

(i) Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No 22NCVC-51-02-2014 (Suit 51) against the MMC and the Professor; and

(ii) Kuala Lumpur High Court Judicial Review Application No R2-25-13-02-2014 ('OS 25 for JR') against only MMC.

Subsequently, in 2014, APHL filed Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-21NCVC-38-04-2016 ("Suit 38").

[3] While OS 25 for JR and Suit 38 are not directly before us in this appeal, the sequence of events and prayers sought there, are in point of fact relevant to this appeal, by reason of the overlap in the relief sought and given that the factual background is the same in all these suits.

Suit 51 - The Civil Claim

[4] Suit 51 against the MMC and the Professor is premised on the torts of negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance of public office on their part arising from several visits to one Lincoln University College ('LUC') to survey, monitor and/or accredit specific medical degree programmes proposed to be undertaken by APHL (namely MOA/PA 0927, MOA/PA 1561 and MQA/PA 1562). These visits were undertaken in May 2011, April 2013, July 2013 and October 2013. On 10 October 2013, pursuant to these accreditation visits, the MMC took a decision to cancel the proposed programmes as listed above. In short, APHL's complaint was that in so determining to cancel these programmes, the two defendants, the respondents here, had been negligent, breached their statutory duty and committed the tort of a misfeasance of public office. The relief originally sought in Suit 51 included, inter alia:

(i) General damages for negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance;

(ii) Special damages in the sum of RM450,000 being the costs of preparation for the accreditation visits;

(iii) Special damages in the sum of RM1 million as costs of preparation for the second accreditation;

(iv) Interest;

(v) Injunctive relief and an apology.

[5] There was no prayer for damages sought as a consequence of the cancellation of the medical programmes.

[6] The claim was amended twice - first to extend the causes of action to assessment visits conducted, and second to include an allegation of bias against MMC as well as conflict of interest.

[7]Vide the third amendment application, comprising the subject matter of this appeal, APHL sought to enlarge the special damages claimed, so as to recover the costs it allegedly incurred for a period of three years from 2011 in the sum of RM579,992,400, as a consequence of the cancellation of the medical programmes. (The cancellation of the medical programmes also comprises the subject matter of OS 25 for JR).

[8] This re-re-amendment application was brought some three years after Suit 51 had been filed. It was brought mid-trial. APHL had eight witnesses and had called six of