SAILCOTT (M) INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD v 1. ) XXXX 2. ) NAZIRAH BINTI HASNAN 3. ) PUSAT PERUBATAN UNIVERSITI MALAYA

Case Significance

Illustrates that a tender-dispute claim alleging duty of care, fiduciary duty and misrepresentation may be struck out under Order 18 rule 19 where it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

This High Court decision, delivered in Bahasa Malaysia, concerns an application to strike out a writ and statement of claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff, Sailcott (M) International Sdn Bhd, had sued four defendants — three officers connected with a hospital's facilities and procurement functions and the Pusat Perubatan Universiti Malaya (University of Malaya Medical Centre) itself — alleging failure to exercise a reasonable duty of care, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation and negligence in the evaluation and award of a tender. The defendants applied to strike out the claim on the grounds that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. The issues the court had to decide included whether any duty of care arose between the parties in the tender-evaluation process, whether a fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendants, whether the defendants had made any misrepresentation in the tender exercise, and whether the plaintiff's action disclosed a reasonable cause of action in law. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was baseless and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and accordingly allowed the defendants' application under Order 18 rule 19, striking out the writ and statement of claim with costs of RM3,000.00 to the defendants subject to allocatur. It also noted that a related application to inspect documents under Order 24 had become academic once the main action was disposed of, so no further finding was needed on it. The judgment illustrates the court's willingness to strike out, at an early stage, a tender-related claim that pleads duty of care, fiduciary duty and misrepresentation without disclosing a sustainable cause of action. The court accepted, in substance, that officers evaluating a tender owe their duties to the awarding institution rather than to a disappointed tenderer, so that no private duty of care or fiduciary obligation arose between the plaintiff and the defendants on the facts pleaded.