JUDGMENT

Low Hop Bing J:

Appeal

This is an appeal by the appellant ("the plaintiff") in encl. 32 against the decisions of the learned senior assistant registrar who had on 25 September 1999 allowed the respondent's ("the defendant's") applications made in:

(1) Summons-in-chambers, encl. (5), by expunging certain parts of para. 13 of the plaintiff's statement of claim ("the impugned paragraph"); and

(2) Summons-in-chambers, encl. (17), by expunging paras. 15 to 17 of and exh. "TPK-5" annexed to the affidavit of Tan Pay Kong affirmed on 16 November 1998 in encl. (6) filed on behalf of the plaintiff. (Paragraphs 15 to 17 are collectively referred to as "the impugned affidavit")

Plaintiff's Claim

For the purposes of this judgment, it is necessary to put the plaintiff's claim in a proper perspective. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is based on negligence allegedly occasioned by the defendant in failing to transmit by way of telegraphic transfer a sum of S$730,000 ("the fund") in time to a Singaporean bank, United Oversea Bank ("UOB"). The plaintiff alleges that it had on 31 December 1997 applied through the defendant's Port Klang branch to remit the fund to UOB by way of telegraphic transfer.

The plaintiff further alleges that the fund was received by UOB on 3 January 1998, which was a Saturday and being a non-foreign exchange transaction day in Singapore, it was alleged that the plaintiff's agent in Singapore received the fund from UOB on 5 January 1998, after the fund was converted from Singapore dollars to US dollars. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has failed to ensure that the fund was transmitted to UOB on 31 December 1997, ie, on the same day of the instruction. As a result of the purported delay, the plaintiff alleges that it has suffered various losses and claims, inter alia, for loss of income for three days on 2, 3 and 4 January 1998 in respect of a time charterparty entered into between the plaintiff and Petronas, foreign exchange loss, loss of interest and loss as a result of a claim by an unidentified third party.

The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims and has since filed and served its statement of defence.

Paragraph 13 of the statement of claim reads:

Melalui surat peguam plaintif bertarikh 13 haribulan Januari 1998 dan 14 haribulan Januari 1998 kepada defendan, defendan telah menjawab pada 20 haribulan Januari 1998 dan 21 haribulan Januari 1998 meminta maaf kepada plaintif tetapi, sehingga tarikh ini masih belum, enggan, abai, gagal dan tidak menjelaskan jumlah kerugian dan kehilangan pendapatan plaintif atau apa-apa bahagian daripadanya.

Plaintif akan merujuk kepada surat-surat tersebut semasa perbicaraan tindakan ini.

(Translation:

By way of letters dated 13 January 1998 and 14 January 1998 from the plaintiff's solicitors to the defendant, the defendant replied on 20 January 1998 and 21 January 1998 apologizing to the plaintiff, but until the date hereof has yet to, refused, neglected, failed and did not, settle the plaintiff's damage and loss of income or part thereof.

The plaintiff shall refer to the said letters at the trial of the action herein.).

Defendant's Applications

The defendant's first application is encl. (5), to strike out the writ and statement of claim pursuant to O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court ("Principal Prayer"). Alternatively, the defendant prays that the impugned paragraph be struck out on the ground that it is irrelevant or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court ("Alternative Prayer").

The plaintiff opposed the defendant's application in encl. (5) and filed an affidavit (encl. (6)), the relevant paragraphs of which read:

15. Saya memohon merujuk perenggan 12, 13 dan 14 dan menyatakan bahawa surat-surat defendan bertarikh 20 haribulan Januari 1998, 21 haribulan Januari 1998 dan 23 haribulan Januari 1998 mengenai perundingan adalah jelas menunjukkan bahawa defendan adalah cuai dan bersetuju un