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

b-02imncvc-893-06-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 18 May 2025 • B-02(IM)(NCvC)-893-06/2023 • 27 min read

19 cases cited (0 SG, 19 foreign)

Catchwords

Appeal against the High Court’s decision dated 15 May 2023 in allowing the Defendants’ striking out application per Encl. 9 pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. However, the application was only taken up as a striking out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) pursuant to which the Court may strike out any Writ or pleading on the ground that “it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be”. And pursuant to Order 18 rule 2 - Questions as to whether, by reason of s.31 of the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (“the SOCSO Act”), an employee (or ex-employee) who sustained an employment injury or contracted a disease or medical condition due to his working environment, is precluded or statutorily barred from suing his employer for special damages, general damages, exemplary damages and aggravated damages - the appeal in fact turned solely on a procedural issue, rather than the substantive law (s.31 of the SOCSO Act). - also whether the Court could strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim as being time-barred under s.6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953, when that issue was only raised in the Defence. - Allowing the Appeal with costs of RM15,000.00

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Lim Chong Fong Coram Noorin binti Badaruddin Coram S. Nantha Balan a/l E.s. Moorthy Delivered

Counsel (6)

M Manoharan & Co. Firm Shearn Delamore & Co. Firm Adam Thye Yong Wei Counsel Respondent M Manoharan Counsel Appellant Nur Syamimi Adriana Binti Shahrim Counsel Appellant Vijayan Venugopal Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

ANSHIN PRECISION INDUSTRIES Sdn Bhd Respondent MARUBENI-ITOCHU STEEL Sdn Bhd Respondent S.A.NETWORKS TECHNICAL INDUSTRIES Sdn Bhd Respondent Arunakiri Nathar a/l Krisnan Appellant

Case Significance

ARUNAKIRI NATHAR A/L KRISNAN v 1. ) MARUBENI-ITOCHU STEEL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) AN... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated May 18, 2025 (citation: b-02imncvc-893-06-2023). <p>The appellant, a former employee who allegedly contracted a disease due to his working environment, appealed the High Court's striking out of his writ and statement of claim under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a). The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred in relying on section 31 of the SOCSO Act and the Limitation Act defence, as these were matters raised in the defence and not discernible from the statement of claim alone. The appeal was allowed and the case was restored to the High Court f The panel comprised Lim Chong Fong, Noorin binti Badaruddin and S. Nantha Balan a/l E.s. Moorthy, with S. Nantha Balan a/l E.s. Moorthy delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Adam Thye Yong Wei (counsel for respondent), M Manoharan (counsel for appellant), Nur Syamimi Adriana Binti Shahrim (counsel for appellant), Vijayan Venugopal (counsel for respondent).

Summary

The appellant, a former employee who allegedly contracted a disease due to his working environment, appealed the High Court's striking out of his writ and statement of claim under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a). The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred in relying on section 31 of the SOCSO Act and the Limitation Act defence, as these were matters raised in the defence and not discernible from the statement of claim alone. The appeal was allowed and the case was restored to the High Court for trial.

What was the outcome of ARUNAKIRI NATHAR A/L KRISNAN v 1. ) MARUBENI-ITOCHU STEEL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) AN...?

<p>The appellant, a former employee who allegedly contracted a disease due to his working environment, appealed the High Court's striking out of his w...

Statutes Cited

Civil Law Act 1956 (Cap 67)

Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)

s 6(1)

Road Transport Act 1987 (Cap 333)

Rules of Court 2012

SOCSO Act

s 31

Cases Cited (19)

UK (3)

[1899] 1 QB 86 [1970] 1 All ER 1094 [1970] 1 WLR 688

MY (16)

[1082] 1 MLJ 80 [1971] 2 MLJ 196 [1982] 1 MLJ 74 [1985] 1 MLJ 226 [1993] 1 CLJ 431 [1998] 4 MLJ 323 [1999] 5 CLJ 85 [2002] 2 CLJ 750 [2002] 2 MLJ 650 [2006] 1 CLJ 224 [2010] 1 CLJ 970 [2014] 9 CLJ 15 [2015] 1 MLJ 353 [2015] 6 MLJ 492 [2015] 9 CLJ 153 [2020] 9 CLJ 510