Back
2019 MarsdenLR 2143
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
UMI KALTHUM BINTI ABDUL MAJID, J, ZABARIAH BINTI MOHD YUSOF, J, HANIPAH BINTI FARIKULLAH, JJCA
Stone World Sdn Bhd – Plaintiff
Versus
Engareh (M) Sdn Bhd – Defendant
RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(NCVC)(A)-2124-10/2018
Courts possess inherent jurisdiction to issue consequential orders to prevent injustices due to non-compliance with prior judgments, reinforcing the finality of decisions and the application of res judicata.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 92 r 4 - Order for consequential damages due to non-compliance with prior judgment - Court found inherent jurisdiction to issue consequential orders as necessary to prevent injustice - High Court's empowerment to grant consequential orders reaffirmed - The appellant alleged the High Court lacked jurisdiction, claiming the consequential order varied the original judgment, which was dismissed. (Paras 2, 23, 59, 104)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court found that Stone World failed to demonstrate any substantive contravention of statutory provisions, and thus the issue of jurisdiction regarding the consequential order could not be sustained. (Paras 59, 105)
(C) Res Judicata - The doctrine applied where parties failed to raise objections during prior proceedings regarding the order's authority, precluding re-litigation. (Paras 97, 99, 105)
Facts of the case:
The case involves an appeal by the appellant regarding a consequential order for damages awarded to the respondent after the appellant failed to deliver materials as per a previous judgment. The appellant contested the High Court's authority to issue the consequential order, arguing it was functus officio.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming its jurisdiction and emphasizing that the absence of compliance by the appellant justified the consequential order in the interest of justice.
Issues: The case primarily revolved around the jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing consequential orders after a prior judgment and whether the appellant had grounds to impeach this order based on claims of lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prior judgment enabled the issuance of consequential orders to prevent injustice. The appellant's petition was found to be aimed at re-litigating issues already settled.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Zabariah binti Mohd Yusof JJCA:
JUDGMENT
[1]The appeal before us was by the appellant against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 4.10.2018 dismissing the Originating Summons (OS) wherein the appellant sought to set aside:
(i)the Consequential Order of the High Court dated 16.10.2015 in KL Suit No: S-22NCvC-85-2010 (Suit 85);
(ii)the Deputy Registrar’s Order for assessment of damages of RM3,735,232.97 dated 7.8.2017 in favour of the respondent; and
(iii)the Order of the High Court dated 25.1.2018 in dismissing the appeal of the appellant to the Judge in Chambers against the Deputy Registrar’s Order dated 7.8.2017,
on grounds that the High Court in Suit 85 did not have the jurisdiction to grant the Consequential Order.
[2]After considering the written and oral submissions by parties, we unanimously found that there was no appealable error in the decision of the learned High Court Judge in dismissing the OS. We dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the order of the learned High Court Judge dated 4.10.2018. Herein below are our grounds for deciding so.
[3]In this judgment we shall refer to the appellant as “Stone World” and the respondent as “Engareh”.
BACKGROUND:
[4]Engareh is in the business of importing and processing marble and granite stones sourced from China, Italy, Oman and Spain. From mid-2006, Engareh began supplying these stones to dealers and wholesalers in the construction industry.
[5]On or around 2008, Engareh engaged Stone World to carry out works in cutting and/or processing marble and/or granite stones which were provided by Engareh.
[6]When business relationship between the two parties soured, Engareh instituted proceedings against Stone World on 29.10.2010 vide Suit 85 claiming for the return of certain marble and granite stones. Stone World counterclaimed against Engareh for the sum of RM268,496.54, allegedly for processing and transportation services provided by Stone World to Engareh.
[7]After a full trial, on 28.7.2011, the High Court allowed Engareh’s claim against Stone World. Stone World’s counterclaim was allowed based on quantum meruit. Damages were ordered to be assessed in favour of Engareh and Stone World respectively. We reproduced the relevant part of the said Court’s Order/Judgment herein below:
(a)“ Defendan diperintahkan untuk menghantar bahan-bahan yang dibutirkan dalam perenggan 24 Pernyataan Tuntutan dan Apendix 1-4 (yang mana butir-butirnya dilampirkan sebagai Lampiran 1) dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh perintah, atau dalam alternatif, Perintah bahawa Plaintif atau wakil-wakil Plaintif dibenarkan untuk memungut bahan-bahan tersebut daripada premis Defendan di PLO 466, Jalan Gangsa, Pasir Gudang Industrial Estate, 81700 Pasir Gudang, Johor, Malaysia;
(b)Gantirugi untuk kehilangan penggunaan bahan-bahan tersebut daripada 21.8.2010 sehingga hari pengembalian kesemua bahan yang dibutirkan dalam Apendix 1 hingga Appendix 4 untuk ditaksirkan;
(c)Perintah untuk pembayaran gantirugi untuk penahanan dan/atau salah guna bahan-bahan tersebut yang dibutirkan dalam Apendix 1 hingga 4, dan untuk kerugian tersebut ditaksirkan……………..”.
We will refer to this judgment of the High Court dated 28.7.2011 as “the Initial Judgment”.
[8]Subsequently, a Clarification Order in respect of the Initial Judgment was sought by parties, and on 16.7.2013, the High Court clarified the judgment and directed inter alia, that:
“MAKA ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa Perenggan (a) Penghakiman bertarikh 28hb Julai 2011 dipinda iaitu Defendan menghantar bahan-bahan yang dibutirkan dalam perenggan 24 Pernyataan Tuntutan dan Appendix 1-4 (yang mana butir- butirnya dilampirkan sebagai Lampiran 1) kepada Plaintif dalam masa 30 hari dari tarikh pembekalan satu alamat penghantaran di negeri Johor oleh pihak Plaintif melalui peguamcaranya”
(Hereinafter referred to as “the Clarification Order”.)
[9]On 19.12.2013, Engareh provided the notification of address for delivery up of the materials pursuant to the Initial Judgment and the Clarificatio
