Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] On Wednesday, 6 October the appellant (plaintiff in the court below) moved this court for an urgent injunction against the first and fourth respondents from evicting it from the canteen premises of the first respondent. An injunction in similar terms had been applied for in the court below and had been refused by the judicial commissioner solely on the ground that she had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction. After reading the papers we formed the view that it was in the interests of justice to treat the motion before us as the appeal and we so ordered. We did not have the benefit of a judgment from the learned judicial commissioner. But that did not inconvenience us because the point on which she decided the case is one of pure law. In any event we have jurisdiction to treat an application for a stay or for leave to appeal as the appeal proper and proceed without a written judgment from the High court in the interests of justice: Syarikat Bunga Raya Timor Jauh Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tractors Malaysia Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 127; Perbadanan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor v. Metroway Sdn Bhd, [2003] 3 MLJ 522 CA. The appeal was then fixed for hearing in the list of appeals for the week commencing 11 October 2004. To facilitate the speedy disposal of the appeal we granted the appellant dispensation from complying with the Rules of the court of Appeal 1994 and directed that it merely file its memorandum of appeal without the accompanying documents. The appeal was heard on 13 October 2004. At the conclusion of arguments for the appellant we found it unnecessary to call upon the respondents for a reply and therefore dismissed the appeal. The reasons for our conclusion are now produced.

[2] The brief facts of this case are as follows. The appellant, a private limited company, carries on the business of a canteen operator. According to the evidence, the appellant operates canteens at several government hospitals. Among these is the first respondent. It is not disputed that the appellant was awarded a two year contract from 11 September 2001 to 10 September 2003 to operate the canteen at the first respondents premises. The contract in question was never formalised. It was merely evidenced in writing. It had no provision for termination. It was therefore determinable by the giving of reasonable notice. See, Martin Baker Aircraft Co Ltd & Anor v. Canadian Flight Equipment Ltd [1955] 2 QB 556; Masjaya Trading Sdn Bhd v. Kedah Cement Sdn Bhd, [2004] 4 CLJ 18 CA.

[3] On 9 July 2003, the first respondents canteen committee met and decided that the appellants contract would be extended for a further six months subject to a review for a further extension provided that the appellant overcame the complaints that had been received about the quality of its service. By a letter dated 11 September 2003, the first respondent informed the appellant confirming the extension of six months and of the need for the appellant to pull up its socks. The letter also said that the appellant would be granted a further contract of 2 years to operate the canteen if the respondent is satisfied with the appellants service. At a meeting of the first respondents canteen committee on 2 December 2003 attended by the appellants representatives, it was accepted by the Director of the first respondent that the appellants service had improved and that it had overcome all the complaints levelled against it. The appellants representatives were assured that the appellant would be awarded a further two year contract. The appellants case is that in reliance of this assurance of the first respondent the appellant borrowed money which it invested in installing new equipment, refurbishing the premises and hiring additional manpower but that the first respondent had resiled from its assurance by terminating the appellants contract by its letter of 10 May 2004. The appellant also complains that the first respondent acted in breach of contract by awarding the cante