Nik Hashim FCJ:

Factual Background

[1] The Government of Malaysia and the Governments of the States of Negeri Sembilan, Perak and Selangor appeal to the this court against the decision of the court of Appeal (Gopal Sri Ram JCA, Richard Malanjum JCA (now CJ (Sabah & Sarawak), Hashim Yusoff JCA (now FCJ)) given on 6 April 2005, whereby the court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal with no order as to costs against the decision of the High court (Azmel Maamor J (later FCJ)) which affirmed the senior assistant registrar's (the SAR's) decision in striking out the respondents' writ of summons and statement of claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) of the Rules of the High 1980 (the RHC).

[2] Briefly, the facts are that the respondents either are themselves persons who allegedly had suffered from the Japanese Encaphalities (JE)/Nipah virus or are dependants of persons who died from JE/Nipah virus or owners of pigs farms affected by the JE/Nipah virus. Alarmed by the virus, the affected respondents had requested the Federal and the respective State Governments to cull the pigs to contain the virus spreading. The respondents' complaint was that the Federal and the respective State Governments did not act fast enough but allowed or permitted the situation to worsen to such an extent that led to the respondents suffering injury.

[3] In the paragraphed statement of claim, the respondents narrated at length the events and these details cover some 48 pp. The causes of actions are as follows: negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of statutory duties, negligent misstatement, fraud, unlawful deprivation of fundamental rights, misfeasance of public office and trespass to land, buildings and goods. They claimed for general damages, special damages consisting of RM73,412,750 for loss of pigs, RM60,826,097 for damages to farm facilities, RM1,190,000 for medical expenses and RM185,000 for funeral expenses; exemplary and aggravated damages, certain declaratory orders, interest and costs.

[4] Against the claim, the appellants filed an application to strike out the action under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) of the RHC on the following grounds:-

(i) wrong or unnecessary parties have been sued;

(ii) no reasonable cause of action;

(iii) the claims were barred under:-

(a) Section 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (the PAPA);

(b) Section 7(5) and (3B) of the Civil Law Act 1956 (the CLA);

(c) Sections 36 and 78 of the Animals Act 1953 (the AA);

(d) Section 4 of the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (the PCIDA).

(iv) the claims were unsustainable under ss 10 - 17 of the PCIDA; and

(v) the statement of claim is prolix, raises no triable issue, is made up of submissions and evidence, prevents a fair trial and is an abuse of the court process.

[5] The appellants' application for the striking out was allowed by the SAR and affirmed by the learned High court judge. Although the above grounds were relied on, the learned High court judge ruled that the first ground concerning non-suing of the primary tortfeasors was sufficient to dismiss the appeal. Amongst other things, he said:-

Pada saya, sebelum seseorang pegawai kerajaan itu bertanggungan untuk sebarang kesalahan tort atau ketinggalan yang dilakukan, isu liabiliti pegawai berkenaan perlu diputuskan melalui perbicaraan di mahkamah Terbuka. Jika, pegawai kerajaan terbabit didapati bertanggungan, maka majikan mereka iaitu pihak Kerajaan yang merupakan principal mereka akan bertanggungan secara vikarius. Jika pegawai kerajaan yang berkenaan tidak dinamakan sebagai defendan bagaimana mereka boleh membela diri untuk menafikan tuduhan-tuduhan yang dilemparkan kepada mereka. Amatlah tidak adil dan tidak juga munasabah untuk memutuskan seseorang pegawai kerajaan itu bertanggungan tanpa memberi mereka peluang untuk membela tuduhan yang dibawa terhadap mereka. Untuk tujuan itu, pada penghakiman saya, pegawai kerajaan terbabit perlu dinamakan sebagai suatu pihak sup