A claim for unjust enrichment against a public authority lacks legal basis when the project benefits the general public; therefore, such claims must show a clear entitlement.

Introduction

[1] On 6 May 2025, on the application by the 1st defendant ("Era Perintis") under s 10 of the Arbitration Act , 2005, I had made an order staying this action against Era Perintis for the disputes between the plaintiff ("Nida") and the Era Perintis to be referred to arbitration in accordance with their arbitration agreement.

[2] This second judgment is on the application by the 2nd defendant ("JKR") to strike out the claim against it ("JKR's Application").

Salient Facts

[3] By a "Surat Setuju Terima (Bagi Tender Kerja)" dated 28 October 2022 ("SST"), JKR had appointed Era Perintis as the main contractor for the "Pembinaan Bangunan Asrama Tambahan di SMK Segambut Jaya in Kuala Lumpur" ("Project").

[4] By a Letter of Award dated 7 March 2023 ("LOA"), Era Perintis had subcontracted the building and construction works of the Project to Nida. On Nida's request, the LOA provided for direct payment from JKR to Nida by way of a Deed of Assignment.

[5] Despite Nida applying to JKR for direct payment to be made to it by way of a deed of assignment, JKR rejected that application on the basis that Nida was unqualified and failed to comply with the criteria for payment by way of a deed of assignment.

[6] Era Perintis terminated the Subcontract by a letter dated 14 October 2024.

[7] On 20 January 2025, Nida filed this action against Era Perintis and JKR.

[8] JKR entered an appearance to this action on 17 February 2025, filed its defence on 14 March 2025, and filed its application to strike out this action against it on 5 May 2025.

Analysis And Decision

[9] The starting point would obviously be to ascertain Nida's claim against JKR alongside JKR's Application to determine whether Nida's claim against JKR is obviously unsustainable to be struck out.

[10] This approach would be in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd ; ; [1993] 2 AMR 1969 in which Mohamed Dzaiddin SCJ said:

"The principles upon which the Court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19(1) Rules of the High Court are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule (per Lindley MR in Hubbuck v. Wilkinson [1899] 1 QB 86, p 91), and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it "obviously unsustainable" (Attorney-General of Duchy of Lancaster v. L & N W Ry Co [1892] 3 Ch 274, CA ). It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence (Wenlock v. Moloney [1965] 1 WLR 1238; [1965] 2 All ER 871, ). The authorities further show that if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for argument under O 33 r 3 (which is in para materia with our O 33 r 2 Rules of the High Court) (Hubbuck v. Wilkinson) (supra). The Court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the defences raised are not arguable."

[11] In para 31 of its Statement of Claim, Nida is seeking the following relief:

"(a) An order that the 1st defendant compensates the plaintiff for all losses and damages incurred resulting from its conduct and/or omission(s) pleaded above, including but not limited to RM6,404,594.05;

(b) General damages to be assessed by this Honourable Court and paid by the 1st defendant on account for its breach of contract, at not less than RM6,404,594.05;

(c) Alternatively, special damages in the sum of RM6,404,594.05;

(d) A