Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Cause of Action
Joinder of causes of action O.15 R (1)RHC Counter Claim O.15 rule 2, 3(1) (2) Survival of cause of action after death Sec 8 (1) of the Civil Law Act Two actions in respect of the same cause of action
situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person
Govt of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang, United Engineers (M) Berhad v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 (Supreme Court)
Salleh Abbas LP A cause of action is a statement of fact alleging that a plaintiffs right, either at law or by statute, has, in some way or another, been adversely affected or prejudiced by the act of a defendant in an action
Salleh Abbas LP
In my view that factual situation spoken by Lord Diplock (Letang v Cooper) must consist of a statement alleging that, first, the respondent/Plaintiff has a right either at law or by statute and that, secondly, such right has been affected or prejudiced by the appellant /defendants act.
Facts
The respondent, an opposition leader applied for declaration to declare a contract for construction of the North and south Highway signed between the Government of Malaysia and the UEM invalid. He also sought an injunction to restrain UEM from signing the contract with the Govt.
continue
The applications were made at the Penang High court. Both the Govt and UEM applied to set aside the injunction and the suit on the ground that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, for lack of Locus standi and in addition for being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process ( O.18 r.19) The application was however dismissed, the Govt and UEM appealed to the Supreme Court
Decision
Going through the respondents statement of claim, I found nothing in it which shows the existence of such factual situation. The respondent had no legal relationship with the UEM, which would indicate the existence of any legal right or duty in the relation between them. He is a complete stranger to the company.
continue
It is not shown that the respondent is a share holder or has any interest directly or indirectly, in running of the affairs of UEM nor has UEM done any wrong to the respondent or deprived or threatened to deprive him of his right and privilege. The entitling factual situation simply does not exist. Therefore the respondents suit against UEM is unmaintainable.
Sio Koon Lin & anor v S.B. Mehra [1981] 1 MLJ 230
R contributed RM100,000 to a partnership business. It was agreed by the partners that the respondent should be paid in the following manner: RM 15,000 upon execution of the p/ship agreement RM 35,000 on or before Oct 12, 1972 RM 50,000by monthly installment of RM10,000 on the 12 day of each succeeding month. No provision on default payment included in the agreement.
Decision
No cause of action exist at the date when the writ was filed. The payment only due and accumulated after the 12th of every month and not before that date.
Implication
This case illustrates the point that if the plaintiff wants to claim for payment of any sum due he must make sure that at the time of filing the writ, the sum is already due and accumulated.