Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

This judgment concerned four (4) enclosures, namely, enclosures 187, 188, 189 and 190. These enclosures concerned four (4) different defendants and for ease of reference they may be identified as follows:-

(a) the fourth defendant by the name of Lee Soon Heng @ Lee Chan Fai and the relevant enclosure would be enclosure 187;

(b) the third defendant by the name of Chan Siew Thong with enclosure 188 as the relevant enclosure;

(c) the seventh defendant by the name of Kuan Peng Ching @ Kuan Peng Soon with enclosure 189 as the relevant enclosure; and, finally,

(d) the fifth and the sixth defendants known as Chin Yim Kuan and Lim Kok Cheong respectively and the relevant enclosure for both of them would be enclosure 190.

I will now proceed to examine these four (4) enclosures separately.

Enclosure 187 - The Fourth Defendant (Lee Soon Heng @ Lee Chan Fai)

The fourth defendant filed an application by way of a summons in chambers in enclosure 156 for, inter alia, an order to strike out the plaintiff's writ and the statement of claim pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court and for dismissal of the same for want of prosecution pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the High 1980 . The learned senior assistant registrar ("SAR") dismissed enclosure 156 and being aggrieved the fourth defendant filed an appeal to the Judge in chambers as seen in enclosure 187.

The law in regard to dismissal of action for want of prosecution has been documented in the law journals. Suffice for this exercise that reference should be made to the Federal court case of Vasudevan Vazhappulli Raman v. T Damodaran PV Raman & Anor, [1981] 2 MLJ 150; [1981] CLJ (Rep) 101. There Eusoffe Abdoolcader J., writing for the Federal court (with a coram of Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya), Wan Suleiman FJ and Eusoffe Abdoolcader J) laid down the law in regard to the dismissal of an action for want of prosecution in this way (see page 103 of the report):-

3

"(a) Dismissal of action for want of prosecution

The House of Lords in Birkett v. James [1978] AC 297, 317, 326, approving the decision of the English court of Appeal in a trilogy of appeals reported sub nomineAllen v. Sir Aflred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229, 245, 268, held that the power of the court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution should be exercised only where the plaintiff's default had been intentional and contumelious or where there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay on his or his lawyers' part giving rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible or to serious prejudice to the defendant but, other than in a case of contumelious conduct on the plaintiff's part, should not normally be exercised where the delay had not extended beyond the end of the limitation period for the cause of action, and the House further observed per curiam that where a defendant is seriously prejudiced by a writ being issued long after the cause of action has accrued, albeit within the limitation period, the plaintiff must thereafter pursue his action with diligence and the action can only be dismissed (after expiry of the limitation period) for want of prosecution if the delay subsequent to the issue of the writ exceeds the time limits prescribed by the rules of court and is inordinate and inexcusable having regard to the delay before the issue of the writ, and the delay after the issue of the writ has caused some additional prejudice to the defendant beyond that already suffered by him by reason of the delay in bringing the action. The House of Lords in Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau Und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corporation [1981] 1 All ER 289; 2 WLR 141 again restated and discussed these principles but held they do not apply to arbitration proceedings.

We would specifically refer to the propositions enunciated by Salmon LJ, in Allen v. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229, 245, 268 (at p 268) to the effect inter alia in relation to th