Richard Malanjum JCA:

Introduction

[1] On 28 July 2000, the respondents applied by way of summons in chamber to strike out the appellant's writ of summons and statement of claim under O. 18 r. 19(1)(b) or (d) of the Rules of the High Court 1980. The learned senior assistant registrar (SAR) dismissed the application with costs. The 1st and 3rd respondents successfully appealed to the judge in chambers. The writ of summons and the statement of claim of the appellant were therefore ordered to be struck out. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court the appellant thus appealed to this court.

[2] At the outset of the hearing the learned senior federal counsel (SFC) appearing for the respondents applied for security for costs on the ground that the appellant did not reside in Malaysia. A sum of Ringgit Malaysia Ten Thousand (RM10,000) was agreed and duly settled between the parties. We then proceeded to hear the appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing we were unanimous in our decision to allow the appeal with costs. We now give our reasons upon request for the purpose of the hearing proper of the suit.

The Brief Facts

[3] The appellant, a British citizen at the material time, was employed as a Director of Operations by the SEA Helicopters (M) Sdn. Bhd. (SEAH). Upon the appellant's resignation in SEAH on or about 31 December 1980, the 2nd respondent directed SEAH to remit RM22,778.70 being the deduction made from the appellant's monthly salaries towards payment of his income tax. However, SEAH failed to make such remittance to the 2nd respondent. As a result the 3rd respondent commenced legal proceeding against SEAH for the recovery of the outstanding income tax.

[4] Meanwhile, on 17 December 1981, the 1st respondent in his capacity as the Assistant Director of Inland Revenue acting under s. 104 of the Income Tax Act 1967 issued a certificate to the Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Immigration to prevent the appellant from leaving Malaysia unless the appellant's income tax was settled or security was furnished to the satisfaction of the Director General of Inland Revenue. In accordance with the certificate, the police seized the appellant's international passport. Despite numerous requests and appeals to the respondents, the respondents failed to withdraw or release the passport to the appellant.

[5] In the meantime, on or about 13 February 1984, 3rd respondent obtained a winding up order against SEAH and in or around March 1984, a receiving officer was appointed as the liquidator for SEAH. In turn the 3rd respondent decided not to pursue further action against SEAH to recover the appellant's outstanding income tax. However, the 3rd respondent commenced an action against the appellant to claim for the outstanding income tax. Before the Sessions Court the claim was successful. However, the appellant successfully appealed to the High Court. The claim of the 3rd respondent against the appellant was dismissed on 17 February 1998. In turn the passport of the appellant was returned to him on 21 April 1998 after a lapse of 16 years.

[6] The appellant therefore commenced this suit under appeal against the respondents claiming damages for the alleged wrongful act done or neglect or default committed by the 1st respondent as a public officer acting as an agent of and under the instructions of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

Before The High Court

[7] The High Court in addressing the claim by the appellant focused on two main issues. Firstly in relation to the application of the second limb of s. 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (PAPA). The issue was whether the respective acts, that is by the 1st respondent in issuing the aforementioned certificate and the refusal to withdraw the same and by the 3rd respondent in seizing the passport of the appellant and in refusing to release it, constituted a continuous act or a single act. Secondly, whether the acts of the 1st respondent in issuing