JUDGMENT

James Foong J:

Introduction

[1] This is the second portion of the saga commonly known as 'Luggage Distributor's case' (Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hor Teng & Anor [1995] 3 CLJ 520) made famous by the Court of Appeal's ruling that it is unlawful for a tenant to place a caveat over a rented property in order to protect the tenancy.

[2] Subsequent to the ruling by the Court of Appeal's the plaintiff, Quill Construction Sdn Bhd (whom I shall from now on refer to as 'Quill Construction' to avoid confusion over its role as plaintiff in the original claim and then as 1st defendant in the counterclaim) filed this action against the 1st and 2nd defendants (the tenant) for damages suffered as a result of the defendants' unlawful act in lodging the caveat. Summary judgment was obtained by Quill Construction before the senior assistant registrar (SAR) for a sum of RM222,548.46 with interest and costs. There was an appeal against this decision to the judge-in-chambers but Justice Malik Ishak on 11 April 2003 dismissed this appeal and affirmed the decision of the SAR.

[3] The defendants' then attempted to set aside the order for summary judgment by way of encl. 43. I heard a