MY-PARTNERS VIDEO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. v 1. ) Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) 2. ) PROF. DATO' IR Ts. DR. HJ. MOHD FOZI ALI 3. ) PROF. MADYA DR. HAIDAR DZIYAUDDIN

Case Significance

Illustrates that a claim against officers of a statutory body will be struck out where the cause of action is incomplete — there being no nexus between already-accrued expenditure claimed as damages and the alleged tort — and where statutory immunity provisions apply.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application to strike out a suit brought against officers of a statutory body for an alleged tort of misrepresentation, engaging both statutory immunity and the requirement that a cause of action be complete. The plaintiff, a provider of digital media advertising display units, had entered an agreement with the first defendant — a statutory body established under the Universiti Teknologi MARA Act 1976 — to install and operate digital media display units and procure advertising deals on a profit-sharing basis. The second and third defendants were officers of the first defendant, respectively its Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Development) and its legal advisor, and the plaintiff sought to hold them personally liable in the tort of misrepresentation. The second and third defendants applied to strike out the claim against them under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, relying on the immunity conferred by sections 31 and 34A of the Universiti Teknologi MARA Act 1976 and on the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948. A central point in the Court's reasoning was that the cause of action was not complete: the damages claimed represented the amount the plaintiff had allegedly expended in performing its obligations under the agreement — an already accrued expenditure — so that there was no nexus between the sum claimed and the alleged tort of misrepresentation. The measure of damages in tort seeks to restore the injured party to the position it would have occupied had the tort not occurred, and on the pleaded case that position still involved the accrued expenditure and the expiry of the agreement. Finding that the claim against the second and third defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was obviously unsustainable on the face of the pleadings, the Court allowed the striking-out application and dismissed the action against them with global costs of RM10,000.