1. That a question of law, namely whether the Plaintiff is entitled to make a claim and/or commence or continue with this instant action under Fire Consequential Loss Policy No. 015 6062-03-4 notwithstanding that the Plaintiff's claim on the Fire Material Damage Policy No. 014 7548-03-0, which is the subject matter of a Civil Suit (D2-22-1997-2008) has yet to be fully and finally determined, be tried as a preliminary issue before the trial of this matter.

2. If the question of law be decided in the Defendant's favour, the action against the Defendant be dismissed struck out, or alternatively be stayed pending the full and final determination of the D22-22-1997-2008 suit.

3. Such further directions be given by this Court in its discretion for the summary determination on trial of the question of law as may be necessary or appropriate.

Although couched in the alternative, the focus of this application is Order 14A , where the requirements set out in the Order have to be satisfied before the Court can grant relief under it.

Under Order 14A ("Disposal of case on point of law"), rule 1, it is provided that the Court may upon the application of a party or of its own motion determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that (a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action, and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein.

There are therefore two main requirements to be satisfied. The question of law must be suitable for determination without a full trial and such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter.

I have considered the question of law to be determined and the reliefs prayed in Enclosure 5, and bearing in mind the dispute between the parties as disclosed in the pleadings and the affidavits filed, I am not satisfied that the question of law submitted before this Court's determination is a "suitable question of law" to be determined without the full trial of the action. As the pleadings and the present dispute stand, even the second requirement cannot be fulfilled, namely the determination of the question of law will not have the effect of "finally determining" the "entire" action.

I am therefore dismissing the Defendant's application in Enclosure 5 with costs of RM1,500.00 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

I now state the reasons.

As succinctly stated by counsel for the Defendant, the Defendant's application, in a nutshell, argues that the Plaintiff's cause of action in this suit has not yet accrued. It is therefore argued the claim is premature and hence there is no valid cause of action as of now. Hence, the Defendant has included as its first prayer for relief the determination that the action against the Defendant be struck out, or alternatively stayed pending the disposal of Civil Suit D2-22-1997-2008.

This present suit is based on a claim on one of two policies purchased by the Plaintiff, who is garments manufacturer, namely a "Fire Policy" or "Material Damage Policy", and a "Fire Consequential Loss Policy". This present suit is in respect of the second policy i.e. the Fire Consequential Loss Policy. The Material Loss Policy is the subject matter of the other suit, which apparently has been fixed for trial from 15^th to 17^th August 2011. The first policy ("Fire Policy") covers the value of plant, stock and machinery destroyed by fire as at the time of the happening of the fire, while the second policy ("Fire Consequential Loss Policy") covers loss consequent on the material loss caused by the fire. As stated by counsel for the Defendant, the second policy w