JUDGMENT

Mohd. Azmi SCJ:

The question for determination in both these appeals is whether the learned Judge of the High Court was correct in law in setting aside the order of the Registrar dated 27 June 1986 granting the appellants leave to serve out of jurisdiction, a notice of concurrent writ of summons on the International Tin Council (ITC) in London. Instead the learned Judge made an order giving the appellants liberty to amend their statements of claim to exclude that part of the prayers relating to their monetary claim against the ITC, and conditional upon the said amendment, liberty be given to them to cause a fresh concurrent writ of summons to issue against the ITC in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The substituted order was couched in such terms because he was of the view that unlike the other prayers sought in the writ, the High Court had no jurisdiction over the monetary claim against the ITC although surprisingly no order was deemed necessary to amend the pleadings relating to this particular cause of action.

It is common ground that the ITC is recognised under English Law by the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972. [See Maclaine