Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Preliminary

This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court at Shah Alam dismissing the appellants' summons to strike out the respondent's suit on the ground that it was an abuse of the court's process. We heard the appeal on 3 May 1999, and, at the conclusion of arguments, allowed it.

When pronouncing the order of this Court I said that this was one of the worst cases of an abuse of the process I had ever come across. Having re-read the appeal record for the purpose of writing this judgment I have found nothing to alter that view.

Facts And Chronology

The respondent is a housing developer. On 1 June 1994, it entered into an agreement with the first appellant. It was an agreement in the form prescribed by the Architects Association of Malaysia. It is known to the profession as "the PAM form of contract". Under the agreement the first appellant was to carry out certain infrastructure work for the respondent at a project site in Kulim, Kedah.

The second appellant is a consultant engineer. He is the managing director of the first appellant. According to the respondent's amended statement of claim, he is the alter ego of the first appellant.