Back
2023 MarsdenLR 280
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MUHAMMAD AIMAN HAKIM ANUAR & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ANUAR KADER & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: B-01(IM)(NCVC)-824-11-2022]
The determination of legal questions under Order 14A is unsuitable when serious factual disputes exist, necessitating a full trial.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14A and Order 33 - Appeal against dismissal of application for determination of questions of law - Court found that questions posed were not purely legal but fact-based requiring trial - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 32-41)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that applications under O 14A are unsuitable where serious disputes of fact exist, requiring full trial for resolution. (Paras 36-39)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs claimed demurrage charges due to unlawful detention of Containers by the Defendants from April 2018 to July 2019, following a prior ruling that the detention was unlawful. (Paras 8-30)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the issues raised by the Plaintiffs were not questions of law but involved serious disputed facts necessitating a trial. (Paras 39-41)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Defendants were bound by prior court decisions and if the continued detention of Containers was unlawful. (Paras 2-4, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of the raised questions involved factual disputes that could not be resolved summarily, emphasizing the necessity of a full trial. (Paras 39-40)
Result: Enclosure 80 dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against high court decision (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. factual background of the case (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. decisions of the sessions court (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. decisions of the high court (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. plaintiffs' claims and applications (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. relevant provisions of law (Para 32) |
| 7. court's analysis and reasoning (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 8. conclusion and order of the court (Para 39 , 40) |
Introduction
[1] The appeal before us is against the decision of the Shah Alam High Court dated 19 October 2022 dismissing the Appellants' application pursuant to O 14A and/or O 33 of the Rules of Court 2012.
[2] By encl 80 dated 21 April 2022, the Appellants filed a Notice of Application at the Shah Alam High Court seeking for the following questions and/or issues to be determined as questions of law and/or preliminary issues:
(i) whether the Defendants are bound by the decisions of the Sessions Court dated 19 July 2018 ("the Judgment") allowing part of the Plaintiffs' claim in Shah Alam Sessions Court Civil Suit No: BA-B51-33-05/2017, ("Suit No 33") and the subsequent decision of the High Court dated 21 March 2019 ("the Order") in Shah Alam High Court Civil Appeal No BA-12B-120-07/2018 ("Appeal No 120") allowing the Plaintiffs' appeal against part of the said decision of the Sessions Court;
(ii) whether the Defendants are estopped from denying their liability and consequential effect of the said decision;
(iii) if the answers to the questions or issues at para (i) and (ii) herein above are affirmative, whether the continued detention of the Containers by the Defendants from 5 April 2018 until 29 July 2019 is unlawful;
(iv) if the answer to the questions or issues at para (iii) herein above is in the affirmative, whether Defendants are liable to pay Demurrage Charges, damages and interest as claimed in the Re-Amended Statement of Claims in the Action herein.
[3] The learned High Court Judge dismissed encl 80.
[4] The Plaintiffs appealed against the High Court's decision.
[5] Hence this appeal.
[6] Parties will be referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendants respectively in this Judgment.
Brief Facts
[7] It is pertinent to recap the sequence of events and facts in order to appreciate the factual matrix of the present appeal.
[8] On or about 21 April 2016, the Plaintiffs purchased 15,067 pieces of galvanized steel pipes ("the Goods") from China to be sold in Malaysia and Thailand.
[9] The said Goods were shipped in eight (8) Containers to Port Klang.
[10] On arrival, the Containers and the Goods in it were detained by the Customs Department of Malaysia on 13 May 2016.
[11] In May 2017, the Plaintiffs commenced an action in the Shah Alam Sessions Court Civil Suit No: BA- B51-33-05 /2017 ("Suit No 33") against the Defendants seeking declaratory relief that the Defendants had wrongfully and unlawfully detained the Goods and damages for the loss of the Goods and demurrage charges for the detention of all the 8 Containers.
[12] At the trial of Suit 33, the Plaintiffs adduced evidence of demurrage charges amounting to RM1,733,354.40 for the duration of the detention of the Goods ie from 13 May 2016 until before the commencement of the trial on 4 April 2018.
Decision Of The Sessions Court
[13] On 19 July 2018, the learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the Plaintiffs declaratory relief and ruled that the detention by the Defendants was wrong and unlawful and accordingly ordered the Defendants to compensate the Plaintiffs the value of the Goods being the sum of RM437,511.16 with interest and costs.
[14] However, the learned Sessions Court Judge did not allow the claim for damages.
[15] Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants appealed against part of the judgment namely the order for damages.
[16] On 20 July 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Shah Alam High Court Civil Appeal No BA-12B-120-07/2018 ("Appeal No 120") against part of the Se
