Low Hop Bing JCA:

Appeals

[1] These two appeals lodged by the appellants - plaintiffs ("the plaintiffs") arose from the orders of the Kuala Lumpur High Court made pursuant to two summonses in chambers, the particulars of which are:-

Application

Order

Encl (8)

Plaintiffs' application, to prevent the Attorney General or his officers from acting for the first respondent-defendant ("the first defendant"), was dismissed with costs.

Encl (6)

Application of the respondents-defendants ("the defendants"), to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of the High 1980, was allowed with costs.

(See Indah Desa Saujana Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. James Foong Cheng Yuen & Anor, [2006] 1 MLJ 464 HC; [2006] 2 AMR 157)

[2] After hearing submissions, we dismissed these appeals. Our grounds now follow.

[3] For convenience, the parties herein are referred to in their respective capacities as plaintiffs and defendants in the High Court.

Factual Background

[4] On 25 October 2002, the plaintiffs, also the plaintiffs in another action ie Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: D2-22-987-2000, had obtained default judgment for some RM14 million ("the judgment sum") against Public Bank Bhd ("Public Bank") in that action.

[5] The plaintiffs sought to enforce the default judgment by way of a writ of seizure and sale on 15 November 2002.

[6] As a result, Public Bank issued a banker's cheque ("the cheque") for the judgment sum in the name of the Senior Assistant Registrar ("the SAR").

[7] On 18 November 2002, the SAR granted a stay of the default judgment.

[8] On 24 April 2003, the SAR set aside the default judgment. On appeal, the judge in chambers had on 22 March 2005 affirmed the SAR's decision. The plaintiffs filed their action against the defendants on 14 May 2005.

[9] Paragraph 5 of the plaintiffs' statement of claim averred, inter alia, that the plaintiffs required Public Bank to pay the cheque to the plaintiffs directly but Public Bank refused, and that Public Bank had directly contacted the first defendant, a judge of the Kuala Lumpur High Court, who was at the material time on leave in Singapore. He gave instructions by way of a telephone call and directed the SAR to allow and accept Public Bank's payment into Court instead.

[10] Subsequently, payment of the cheque was stopped. When the plaintiffs did not receive the judgment sum, they blamed the defendants, particularly the first defendant, alleging that:-

(1) The first defendant being attached to the civil division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court was only to deal with the cases assigned thereto;

(2) There was no direction or change of direction for the first defendant to deal with plaintiffs' case in the commercial division;

(3) The first defendant was acting as the agent of Public Bank when he gave instructions to the SAR to accept payment into Court;

(4) The first defendant was obviously allowing Public Bank to play for time and delay the encashment of the cheque;

(5) The first defendant must have known that Public Bank was buying time and had never intended to honour the cheque;

(6) The first defendant's actions and omissions have a tendency to cause loss of confidence and damage the integrity of the banking practice and system in the country;

(7) The first defendant wrongly interfered with the process of justice and execution and wrongly induced the bailiffs and the SAR to accept the cheque when he had no business, duty, right or responsibility to do so; and

(8) The first defendant's acts were contrary to the provisions of para 3(1)(a) and (d) of the Judges Code of Ethics 1994, s 15 of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, s 20 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 22 of 1970 and the Chief Justice's Directive No: KHN 156 dated 10 October 1998.

[11] The plaintiffs claim that the first defendant's "wilful, malicious (intentional) malfeasance and misfeasance, mala fide acts and omissions have caused the plaintiffs los