1. ) MT VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) MULTI TOP AUTO SUPPLIES SDN BHD v QM PRINT SDN BHD AMICUS CURIE 1. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara 2. ) Tetuan Malis & Khoo

Case Significance

A significant Federal Court statement that the dismissal of a striking-out application raising a jurisdictional or threshold objection (locus standi, res judicata) is appealable, and that the section 68 amendment does not operate retrospectively to remove a vested right of appeal.

This Federal Court decision resolves when a party has a right to appeal against the dismissal of an interlocutory application to strike out a pleading, following the amendment to section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The appeals were heard together: one brought by MT Ventures Sdn Bhd and Multi Top Auto Supplies Sdn Bhd against QM Print Sdn Bhd, and a related appeal by Azinal Sdn Bhd. In each the defendants had applied to strike out the plaintiff's claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012, the writ and the striking-out application having been filed before 1 October 2022 when the amendment to section 68 took effect, and a preliminary objection was taken that the dismissal was non-appealable under section 68(1)(f). The central questions were when the right of appeal vests, whether the amendment to section 68 operates retrospectively, and whether these particular dismissals were appealable. The court examined the nature of each striking-out application. In the MT Ventures matter, the application challenged the plaintiff's locus standi, a threshold requirement the plaintiff had to satisfy for the suit to be brought, so its dismissal was appealable; in the Azinal matter, the application raised res judicata, a true jurisdictional objection engaging the defendants' right not to be subjected to duplicative litigation, so its dismissal finally disposed of that right and was likewise appealable. Applying a purposive approach to statutory interpretation under section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, the court held in the alternative that section 68 should not be read as operating retrospectively to take away the parties' vested right of appeal, which they possessed before the amendment. It concluded that the parties had a right to appeal, ordered both appeals reinstated to be heard in full before the Court of Appeal, and saw no need to answer the leave questions posed. The judgment is a significant statement on the appealability of striking-out dismissals raising jurisdictional or threshold objections and on the non-retrospectivity of the section 68 amendment.