Low Hop Bing JCA (delivering judgment of the court):

APPEAL

[1]On 21 March 2011, the Shah Alam High Court allowed the respondents' (the defendants') summons in chambers and struck out the appellants' (the plaintiffs') originating summons ('the OS') under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs filed this appeal.

(A reference hereinafter to an Order and a rule is a reference to that order and rule in the Rules of the High Court 1980).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[2]The plaintiffs are members of the State Legislative Assembly of Selangor ('SLA').

[3]The first and eighth defendants refer to one and the same person ie Dato' Teng Chang Khim (Dato' Teng) who is the chairman of the SLA Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency ('SELCAT'), the chairman of the SLA Committee of Rights and Privileges ('CRP') and the speaker of the SLA. Both SELCAT and CRP are committees constituted under the standing orders of SLA ('SO').

[4]The second to seventh defendants are committee members of SELCAT.

[5]The ninth defendant is the clerk of the SLA.

[6]The tenth defendant is the State Government of Selangor.

[7]The plaintiffs' OS sought the following declarations:

(a)that the composition of SELCAT does not reflect the balance between the parties within the SLA as required by SO 72(1);

(b)that in conducting its hearings publicly and in allowing the publication and dissemination of reports concerning its proceedings prior to the presentation of its formal report to the SLA, SELCAT has acted in breach of SO 75 and the Constitution of the State of Selangor 1959 ('the Selangor State Constitution');

(c)Dato' Teng as speaker of the SLA and chairman of CRP is in a position of conflict when he sits as the chairman of SELCAT, and therefore all proceedings conducted by SELCAT are null and void, being contrary to the rules of natural justice;

(d)that the proceedings and functions of SELCAT have impeded upon matters reserved for the public accounts committee of the SLA under the SO and/or the Selangor State Constitution, and SELCAT has thereby acted in excess of its jurisdiction;

(e)that the matters deliberated upon by SELCAT are beyond the scope of the matters expressly referred to SELCAT by the SLA and therefore the said proceedings are null and void, being contrary to SO 73(4); and

(f)that the formation of SELCAT and/or the proceedings thereof are null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER O 18 r 19(1)(a)

[8]At the hearing of the instant appeal, learned counsel from both sides of the Bar table submitted at great length and covered such issues as the privileges of the SLA, and the position in the United Kingdom and Malaysia. They also relied on the privileges of Legislative Assembly and privileges of Parliament respectively under arts 72 and 63 of the Federal Constitution.

[9]More specifically, Mr Tommy Thomas (Ms Nur Ashikin Abdul Rahim with him), of counsel for the defendants, took the position that the OS should be struck out under O 18 r 19(1), as plainly, clearly and obviously the matters complained of do not provide the plaintiffs with a sustainable cause of action recognised by the courts. For this proposition, they cited the following authorities:

(a)Lim Cho Hock v Speaker, Perak State Legislative Assembly

(b)Haji Salleh bin Jafaruddin v Datuk Celestine Ujang & Ors

(c)YAB Dato' Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir & Ors v YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (Attorney General Malaysia, intervener)

(d)Gobind Singh Deo v Yang DiPertua, Dewan Rakyat & Ors

[10]Mr Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin (Mr MM Athimulan, Mr Lim Kon Keen and Ms Siti Maspuah Maulan with him) submitted that the plaintiffs have a reasonable cause of action; and the court must hear and determine the OS on its merits.

[11]In essence, the learned High Court judge has struck out the OS on the basis of O 18 r 19(1)(a), on the ground that the OS discloses 'no sustainable cause of action' and so it was a 'plain and obvious case for the court to all