ARUNAKIRI NATHAR A/L KRISNAN v 1. ) MARUBENI-ITOCHU STEEL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ANSHIN PRECISION INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 3. ) S.A.NETWORKS TECHNICAL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the caution the courts exercise before striking out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a): a claim that is merely weak, rather than plainly and obviously unsustainable, should proceed to trial, especially where it raises an arguable point under remedial social legislation whose ambiguities are resolved in favour of the injured employee.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya concerns the striking out of a claim said to raise a novel point under social legislation. The appellant had sued three companies, and the High Court had allowed the defendants' application to strike out his writ and pleading under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 — the limb permitting a court to strike out a pleading that discloses no reasonable cause of action. On appeal, the question was whether the claim was so plainly and obviously unsustainable that it ought to be struck out in limine, or whether it raised an arguable point fit to be tried. The underlying issue touched the reach of social-security legislation and whether a person could be treated as an insured person under that scheme even where contributions had not in fact been paid, so long as contributions could have been payable and the industry was one to which the Act applied. The Court of Appeal took the view that, although the appellant's claim might be weak, that was no justification for striking it out at the threshold when a further attempt was being made to test the limits of the law, and that in the case of a piece of social legislation any ambiguity ought to be resolved in favour of the injured employee. It declined to characterise the claim as completely hopeless or a total non-starter, and therefore held that this was not a plain and obvious case for striking out. The court allowed the appeal and directed that the matter be case-managed before another judge. Determined by a panel comprising S. Nantha Balan, Lim Chong Fong and Noorin binti Badaruddin JJCA, the judgment is a useful illustration of the caution the courts exercise before striking out a claim that raises a genuinely arguable point, particularly under remedial social legislation where doubts are resolved in favour of the worker.