Mohd Saari Yusoff JCA:

In the High Court, the respondent/defendant applied to strike out the action filed by the appellant/plaintiff under O. 18 r. 19(1)(b) and (d) of RHC 1980. The learned registrar granted the application and in consequence thereof the appellant appealed to the judge in chambers. The learned judge dismissed the appeal, hence the present appeal to this court.

Events Leading To The Dispute

Under an agreement dated 15 April 1992 entered into between the appellant and the respondent, the appellant agreed inter aliato manufacture and deliver to the respondent 13,000 units GRP telephone booths (hereinafter referred to as "the goods") for a total sum of Malaysian Ringgit seven million one hundred and forty thousand (RM7,140,000) (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement"). Out of 13,000 units, the appellant undertook to produce 300 units of the goods in the first month, 900 units in the second month and 1,000 units monthly thereafter in accordance with the expected order schedule of the Telekom.

In a later development, the appellant filed an action against the respondent for alleged breach of contract videCivil Suit No: D3-22-1443-1992, which resulted in entering of a consent order on 13 November 1992. The terms of the consent order are as follows:

1. Pihak-pihak akan meneruskan dengan perjanjian bertarikh 15hb April 1992 tetapi jadual hantarserahan adalah seperti berikut:

a) 1,100 unit pondok-pondok talipon GRP pada atau sebelum 31hb Disember 1992 dan kemudiannya;

b) 1,000 unit pondok-pondok talipon GRP pada atau sebelum tarikh akhir setiap bulan yang kemudian hingga 31hb Januari 1994.

2. Defendan akan bekalkan Plaintif dengan satu Surat Kredit dengan sertamerta berkaitan dengan 1,100 unit pondok-pondok talipon GRP tersebut. Surat kredit tersebut harus membenarkan hantarserahan sebahagian dan mentunaikan sebahagian berkenaan. Surat-surat Kredit untuk bulan-bulan kemudian akan dibekalkan pada atau sebelum 1hb setiap bulan.

3. Kesemua lain terma-terma perjanjian bertarikh 15hb April 1992 akan terus beroperasi.

4. Defendan akan membayar Plaintif $11,765.89 pada atau sebelum 17hb November 1992 seperti dinyatakan dalam surat peguamcara Defendan bertarikh 12hb November 1992 dan amaun-amaun selanjutnya yang dinyatakan di sana berkenaan dengan cagaran elektrik, bil elektrik, talipon dan air sekiranya Plaintif boleh menunjukkan bahawa bil-bil servis tersebut (dan cagaran) telah pun dibayar dan dijelaskan.

Dan Selanjutnya Adalah Diperintahkanbahawa kandungan 4 ditarik balik dengan tiada perintah dan setiap pihak menanggung kosnya sendiri berkenaan dengan kandungan Mahkamah (4) dan tindakan ini juga ditarik balik dengan kebebasan kepada Plaintif untuk memfail semula.

Subsequently, on 11 November 1993 the appellant filed an action against the respondent for alleged breach of contract and the consent order videCivil Suit No. D2-22-1137-1993. In the aforesaid suit, the appellant sought relief for specific performance, alternatively for damages. On application by the respondent for striking out of the suit, Siti Norma J (as she then was) granted the application to which there was no appeal.

Then, on 30 September 1994 the appellant filed the present action for alleged breach of contract and consent order and prayed for loss of profit and damages.

Finding

It is not in dispute that pursuant to the consent order dated 13 November 1992, the respondent had given the appellant letters of credits in connection with the manufacturing of 1,100 units of the goods. Looking at para. 19(i) of the statement of claim, it is not in dispute that the appellant had failed to manufacture and deliver to the respondent 1,100 units of the goods on or before 31 December 1992 as required under the terms of the consent order. The appellant was only able to deliver 481 units out of 1,100 units.

The main complaint of the appellant was that the respondent had entered into a contract with a third party (Tetuan Aya Fuji Fibreglass Industries Sdn Bhd)