Roslee Bin Jaafar & 43 Lagi v 1. ) AFTER IMAGE SDN BHD 2. ) MAJLIS DAERAH TANAH MERAH 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA 4. ) PENGARAH JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI KELANTAN 5. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the short limitation period under section 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 protecting a public authority, and the use of the striking-out power under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 where a claim is bound to fail because it is statute-barred.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu concerns an application to strike out the plaintiffs' writ and statement of claim against one of several defendants on limitation grounds. The plaintiffs, a large group of landowners and business-premises owners along a road, had sued a number of parties, including a private company, a district council, the public-works authorities and the Government. The second defendant, the district council, applied under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out the claim against it, contending that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against it and that any claim was in any event time-barred, the district council being a public authority to which the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 applied. The court accepted that the power to strike out a pleading summarily is not to be exercised lightly, but also recognised its duty to prevent a claim with no reasonable cause of action from proceeding to a full trial and consuming judicial time, and that a defendant may show on such an application that the plaintiff's cause of action is statute-barred and must inevitably fail. Examining the plaintiffs' claim and the applicable law, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had no reasonable cause of action against the district council and that, in any event, the claim against it was barred by the limitation imposed under section 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948. It accordingly allowed the district council's application and struck out the writ and statement of claim against the second defendant, with costs of RM8,000 payable to it. The court's approach shows that even a numerous group of claimants cannot avoid the short protective limitation period where the defendant is a public authority acting in that capacity. The judgment illustrates the application of the short limitation period protecting public authorities and the use of striking-out where a claim is bound to fail on limitation.