1. ) CHIA SOON HUP 2. ) JACMAN SU HWAI JEAT 3. ) TAN TECK MENG v 1. ) CELL DIVERSIFIED SDN BHD 2. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN VETERINAR 3. ) MENTERI PERTANIAN DAN KETERJAMINAN MAKANAN 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Illustrates the importance of establishing locus standi and of choosing the correct mode of proceeding — judicial review rather than a writ action — when challenging a public authority's decision, failing which the suit may be struck out under Order 18 rule 19 as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns the striking out of a suit brought by office bearers of a traders' association challenging a surcharge imposed in connection with an abattoir. The plaintiffs, suing as public officers of the association, had sought declarations that an additional charge levied per animal was invalid, ultra vires and unlawful, together with an injunction and an order for the repayment of a substantial sum said to have been collected from the association's members. They sued the abattoir operator and several public authorities responsible for regulating the abattoir's operations. The defendants applied to strike the action out. The court found several fundamental difficulties with the claim. First, the plaintiffs' locus standi was in question: they had not produced the minutes of the association's annual general meeting or other proof of their appointment as public officers of the association under the Societies Act 1966, so their standing to sue on its behalf was not established. Second, the substance of the claim was a challenge to a decision of public authorities, which ought properly to have been brought by way of judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 — subject to its time limit — rather than by an ordinary writ action, so that the chosen mode of proceeding was itself an abuse of process. The court held that the writ and statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were frivolous and unsustainable, and amounted to an abuse of the court's process. Exercising its power under Order 18 rule 19, it allowed the applications of the abattoir operator and the public authorities and struck out the suit. The court's reasoning underscores that a group of individuals cannot assume the mantle of an association to sue on its behalf without proving their authority to do so, and that the public-law character of a grievance dictates the procedural route by which it must be pursued. The judgment illustrates the importance of establishing standing and of choosing the correct mode of proceeding when challenging a public authority's decision.