MAPA cannot enforce individual employment contracts or seek injunctive relief against the defendant due to lack of locus standi and the doctrine of privity of contract.

Headnote:(A) Societies Act 1966 - Civil Aviation Regulations 1996 - Rules of Court 2012 - Specific Relief Act 1950 - Lead to injunction and striking out applications - Court held that MAPA lacks locus standi to file suit against defendant relating to employment contracts, applying doctrine of privity of contract, as individual pilots lack standing to sue on MOU breaches. MAPA's allegations of aviation safety breaches can be adequately addressed through existing regulatory channels without judicial intervention. (Paras 20, 22, 31, 46)

(B) No requirement for two striking out applications - A single application can address multiple grounds under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court, with emphasis on judicial efficiency. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, office bearers of a pilots’ association, sought to restrain employment actions against a member due to ongoing arbitration. Plaintiffs alleged breaches in MOU and aviation regulations by the defendant, necessitating injunctive relief against potential disciplinary actions. (Paras 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs were denied ability to enforce individual contracts against the defendant based on privity of contract doctrine, resulting in lack of reasonable cause of action. Court emphasized the necessity of a private interest for standing, which was absent. (Paras 22, 32)

Issues: Main issues involve the interpretation of privity of contract as applicable to societies and locus standi for filing suit for breaches of employment agreements. (Paras 20, 23)

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized on the necessity of private rights being infringed for standing, ruling MAPA is barred from enforcing contracts against the defendant. Failing to demonstrate special interests or damages further invalidated plaintiffs' standing. (Paras 31, 46)

Result: Suit struck out with costs awarded against plaintiffs.

Table of Content
1. mapa is a registered society. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiffs file suit on behalf of mapa. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defendant filed applications to strike out suit. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. rules on striking out applications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. no evidence admissible in striking out applications. (Para 13)
6. doctrine of privity of contract. (Para 14 , 20 , 21 , 30)
7. court interprets necessity of filings based on precedent cases. (Para 15 , 18 , 19)
8. mapa lacks locus standi. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. mapa's locus standi questioned in enforcing individual contracts. (Para 25)
10. extension of precedents to registered societies like mapa. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
11. mapa failed to show that rights infringed or special damage occurred. (Para 29 , 31)
12. mapa only sought injunctive relief, limiting its claims. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
13. suit deemed vexatious and frivolous due to lack of cause. (Para 35 , 37)
14. suit deemed vexatious and frivolous. (Para 36 , 46)
15. mapa's aviation safety complaints can be directed to authorities. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
16. regulatory authority handles aviation safety complaints. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
17. mapa has alternatives; suit unnecessary. (Para 44 , 45)
18. final ruling granting costs and striking out applications. (Para 47)

[1] Malaysian Airlines Pilots' Association (MAPA) is a society registered under the Societies Act 1966 .

[2] MAPA's members are pilots employed by the defendant company (defendant).

[3] On 18 September 2008 MAPA entered into a memorandum of understanding with the defendant (MOU).

Legal Proceedings

[4] The 11 plaintiffs (plaintiffs) are MAPA's office bearers. The plaintiffs filed this originating summons against the defendant (this suit) in their capacity as MAPA's office bearers and on behalf of all members of MAPA.

[5] In this suit, the plaintiffs applied for, among others, the following relief against the defendant:

(a) an injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding with disciplinary action and/or to impose any punishment (including dismissal) against the 2nd plaintiff in respect of the defendant's "allegation letter" dated 3 July 2014 until the disposal of arbitration proceedings between MAPA and the defendant (arbitration) in respect of the following alleged breaches by the defendant (alleged breaches) of:

(i) clauses 17, 21 and attachment B in the Seventh Schedule to the MOU; and

(ii) the defendant's statutory duties especially those related to regs 79 and 80 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1996 (CAR) (first prayer); and

(b) an injunction to restrain the defendant from:

(i) issuing "allegation letter";

(ii) requesting for any "explanation letter";

(iii) suspending;

(iv) taking any disciplinary action; and/or

(v) imposing any punishment (including dismissal)

- against any pilot in relation to the alleged breaches until the disposal of the arbitration (second prayer).

[6] The plaintiffs have also filed a notice of application in court enclosure no 5 for ex parte injunctions similar to those prayed for in the first and second prayers (court encl 5). I directed court encl 5 to be heard inter partes as the purpose of court encl 5 would not be defeated by giving notice to the defendant - please see the High court's decision in Pacific Center Sdn Bhd lwn. United Engineers (M) Bhd, 1984 MarsdenLR 139 ; , at 212, which I have followed in Chin Wai Hong & Anor v. Lim Guan Hoe & Anor.

[7] The defendant filed the following two applications to strike out this suit:

(a) in court enclosure no 7 (court encl 7), the defendant relied on O 18 r 19(1)(b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 (RC) as well as the court's inherent jurisdiction and O 92 r 4 RC; and

(b) in court encl no 8 (court encl 7), the defendant applied to strike out this suit pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), O 92 r 4 RC and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

[8] Parties agreed that court encl 7 and 8 would be heard together. Parties also consented to court encl 7 and 8 be disposed of first.

[9] The plaintiffs subsequently applied to ame

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 MarsdenLR 2518

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURKAPTEN LAM CHEE KEONG & ORS – AppellantVersusMALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BERHAD – Respondent[Originating Summons No: 24NCC(ARB)-35-07-2014]

MAPA cannot enforce individual employment contracts or seek injunctive relief against the defendant due to lack of locus standi and the doctrine of privity of contract.

Cases Referred (8)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KAPTEN LAM CHEE KEONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BERHAD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: 24NCC(ARB)-35-07-2014]