Haidar Mohd Noor J:

From the statement of claim of the plaintiffs in this writ of summons, it would appear that the claim is centred on the memorandum of understanding dated 14 May 1993 ('MOU') executed with the defendants. The defendants' defence is principally on the ground that the MOU, as the name signifies, is not a legally binding document.

When the action came for hearing before me, I indicated to both counsels that the issue - "whether the MOU is a legally binding document" be determined by the Court first as I was of the view that the decision of such issue would in effect substantially dispose of the cause or matter or render the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary (see O. 33 r. 5).

Both counsels agreed as the Court is empowered to determine the issue first as provided by O. 33 r. 2 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('RHC'). It reads:

The Court may order any question or issue arising in a cause or matter, whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of law, and whether raised by the pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner in which the question or issue shal