The definition of 'decision' in Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 applies only to criminal appeals, and does not restrict civil appeals under Section 67.

Idrus Harun FCJ:

[1] The brief background facts leading to the filing of this appeal are broadly undisputed. I draw them largely from the judgments of the courts below us as well as from the pleadings of the instant suit. By its particulars of claim dated 6 February 2014, Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd which owns and operates Lincoln University College, is the plaintiff to the action. It originally sought against Majlis Perubatan Malaysia and Prof Dato' Dr Wan Mohamed Bebakar, the 1st and 2nd defendants to the action, general damages for the torts of negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office in carrying out its accreditation survey and evaluation of the medical degree programmes offered by the plaintiff. In its claim, the plaintiff in substance alleged that the 1st defendant had cancelled the plaintiff's medical degree programmes on 10 October 2013 and asserted that such cancellation was wrongful. It also claimed for special damages in the sum of RM450,000.00 being costs of preparation for the first accreditation visits and the sum of RM1 million as costs of preparation for the second accreditation visit, interest, injunctive relief and an apology.

[2] The claim was amended twice on 5 May 2015 and 10 September 2015. The first amendment was to extend the causes of action to assessment visits conducted by the defendants. The second amendment was intended to include an allegation of bias against the 1st defendant as well as purported conflict of interest of the 1st defendant's council members.

[3] The plaintiff also simultaneously commenced Kuala Lumpur High Court Judicial Review Application No: R2-25-13-02-2014 (the JR Application) against the 1st defendant herein. By these proceedings, the plaintiff seeks to be granted an order to quash the decision made on 10 October 2013 by the 1st defendant to cancel the medical degree programmes, a declaration that the cancellation was null and void and an order of mandamus to compel the 1st defendant to maintain the approvals given to Lincoln University College to conduct the medical degree programmes.

[4] Two years after the instant case was commenced, on 7 April 2016 to be exact, the plaintiff filed a fresh writ action in Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-21NCVC-38-04-2016 (Suit 38) against the 1st defendant herein, the Minister of Health and the Government of Malaysia. The plaintiff alleged inter alia that the defendants there were liable for the torts of breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office arising from the alleged wrongful action by the 1st defendant in cancelling the medical degree programmes on 10 October 2013 and for reduction in the student quota for another medical degree programme from 100 students to 70 students. For these reasons, the plaintiff sought special damages in the sum of RM579,992,400.00. It is important to note that the plaintiff does not claim for this sum in both the instant action and the JR Application.

[5] On 17 June 2016, the JR Application was allowed by the High Court and accordingly the cancellation of the medical degree programmes was quashed. The 1st defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the said decision of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed on 30 October 2017. A motion for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal was filed by the 1st defendant on 28 November 2017. The Federal Court dismissed the motion on 19 March 2018.

[6] Subsequently, on 25 July 2016, the 1st defendant herein, the Minister of Health and the Government of Malaysia filed their applications to strike out Suit 38. The High Court, on 21 February 2017, allowed the striking out application filed by the Minister of Health and the Government of Malaysia. However, in respect of the 1st defendant's application, the High Court only struck out the claim for special damages arising out of the cancellation of the medical degree programmes but did not strike out the part of the claim pertaining to t