A claim can be struck out if it reveals no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous or an abuse of process, particularly when previous judicial admissions establish liability with another party.

Aslam Zainuddin JC:

JUDGMENT

Enclosure 8

[1]This is an appeal by the appellant against my decision to allow the respondent’s application in enclosure 8 to strike out the suit based on O.18 r.19 ROC 2012. Primarily the appellant in an earlier collateral proceeding id est JA-22NCvC-68-06/2020 admitted that it was responsible for the costs of rectification and diversion works for the electric cables in the defendant’s development project. Therefore the appellant cannot now claim that the respondent ought to reimburse it for the amount involved.

[2]The respondent in its submissions stated :

The Plaintiff’s Claim herein discloses no reasonable cause of action.

3.At the outset, the Defendant submits that the Plaintiff’s failure to follow the approved routed in carrying out the Works (i.e., in laying the electricity cable) is a “…defects or faults in materials and workmanship…” of the Works within the scope of the Letter of Award which ough to be rectified by the Plaintiff during the Defects Liability Period.³

4.It follows therefore the Plaintiff cannot now claim the sum of RM1,620,546.02, being the Cost of Rectification and Diversion Works, from the Defendant given that:-

The Plaintiff’s Claim herein is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and/or is an abuse of process of this Honourable Court.

Further, the inconsistent stance by the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph 6 above underscores that the Plaintiff’s Claim herein as against the Defendant is an abuse of process of this Honourable Court by forum shopping and issue switching. In this regard:-

4.1.“…a “defect” is something that is faulty, or not build correctly.”⁴. Put it simply, “…kerja-kerja “piling” bagi menyiapkan kerja-kerja system perparitan oleh Karaktor skandar Waterfront…” (i.e., Iskandar Waterfront and/or its contractors, including Leader Harvest) would no result in the Damage to Electricity Cable was built correctly. This is consistent with the confirmation by TNB that:-

(a)“…didapati laluan kabel yang direntang oleh pihak Kontraktor yang dilantik oleh Country Garden [Defendant] iait Kontraktor Regal Elite Letrik Sdn Bhd [Plaintif] telah direntang pada laluan yang kerja-kerja perparitan yang mana telah dipersetujui lebih awal oleh semua pihak sebelum kerja-kerja rentangan kabel ke Country Garden ini dilaksanakan.”⁵

(b)“Laluan juga didapati tidak mengikuti sebagaimana laluan yang telah dicadangkan. Ini menyebabkan kabel tersebut telah dirosakkan oleh kerja-kerja yang sedang dijalankan oleh Pihak kontraktor Iskandar Waterfront.”⁶

4.2.Indeed, the Plaintiff has admitted that the Rectification and Division Works “…adalah tanggungjawab Plaintif mengikut terma kontrak dalam Letter of Award mengenai kerosakan atau kepincangan berlaku adalah dibawah tanggungjawab plaintif…” (under oath’) in its Suit against Iskandar Waterfront Sdn Bhd (“Iskandar Waterfront”) and Leader Harvest Construction Sdn Bhd (‘Leader Harvest”) vide the Johor Bahru High Court, Suit No. JA-22NCVC-68-06/2020 for the recovery of the Cost of Rectification and Diversion Works as a result of the Damage to Electricity Cable (“Plaintiff’s Suit against Iskandar Waterfront and Lader Harvest”), which the Plaintiff is now claiming from the Defendant.

4.3.There is, therefore, no basis for the Plaintiff to allege that “There were no defects or fault done by the Plaintiff on the electrical cable.”⁸ and “…damage should not be made the same meaning as of defect…”⁹ as the Plaintiff’s failure to follow the approved route was indeed a defect discovered during the Defects Liability Period when the Electricity Cable was not built correctly. See also the example in the English House of Lords decision od Ruxley Electronics and Cnstruction Ltd v Forsyth

4.4.There is also no basis for the Plaintiff to allege that “The work done