Chapter 6 - Originating Process & Service Flashcards
ORIGINATING PROCESS & SERVICE
Overview
1) Mode of commencement
2) The Writ
3) Service of Writ
4) Service of SOC
5) The Originating Summons
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Overview
1) Writ
2) Originating summons
3) Guidance on writ or OS
4) Where OS is more appropriate
5) Where writ is more appropriate
6) Wrong mode
7) Solution for wrong mode
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Writ
1) The law:
- O.5, r.2;
- O.6
2) When to use - O.5, r.2:
- when substantial dispute of facts are likely to arise.
3) Procedures for issuance of writ - O.6:
- Form: Form 2/2A
- Endorsement: O.6, r.2
4) Defects in intitulement - Dato Ting Check Sii v Datuk Haji Mohamad Tufail bin Mahmud (2007):
- The intitulement and the prayer in the petition do not disclose under what sub-section of S.218 of the CA 1965 the petition is grounded on.
- This by itself can be fatal.
- Court held that an intitulement must sufficiently state particulars.
- The statute or Rule of Court under which the court is being moved must also be sufficiently stated.
- Otherwise it would be an embarrassing pleading and may be liable to be struck out, unless sooner amended.
NOTE: Observe O.1A.
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Originating Summons
1) The law:
- O.5, r.3
- O.7
2) When to use: O.5, r.3
- Application made to the Court or to a Judge; or
- Sole question or issue only involves question of law; or
- No substantial dispute of facts are likely to arise.
3) Procedures for issuance of O.S - O.7:
Form: Form 5/6
Intitulement: provisions which which the court is being moved.
Contents: O.7, r.3
4) Procedures for action begins by O.S - O.28:
- O.28, r.3A: heard in chambers.
5) Non-compliance with formats of O.S - Karisma Saujana Sdn Bhd v Albert a/l Antoni Tass (2008):
- Facts: wrong form used & did not state in the cause of action prior to applying, the remedy or relief for his application.
Held:
- Even if there is non-compliance which OTF none, the provisions of O.1A & in the interest of justice, pure objections on mere technicalities should only cautiously be entertained.
- O.1A RHC is to ensure that application is decided based on merits rather that preliminary objections founded on mere irregularities not amounting to absolute nullity.
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Guidance on writ or OS
O.5, 4:
- OS is appropriate if the sole question is on the construction of any written law or any other question of law; or
- There is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of facts.
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Where OS is more appropriate
1) The law - O.5, r.4:
- sole question is on issue of law; or
- no substantial dispute of facts.
2) No question of fact - National Land Finance Corporative Society v Sharidal Sdn Bhd:
- The issue involved in this case is purely a matter of construction of the sale and purchase agreement between the parties.
- The issue can be decided on the basis of the documents exhibited in court together with the undisputed facts disclosed and that there are no issues relevant to the case which require evidence to be called at a trial.
- No other evidence is needed to determine the issue than the massive correspondence that passed between them and their solicitors.
- Further, there was nothing to prevent party from cross-examining the deponent if they were not happy with his affidavits.
- Therefore, O.S is appropriate.
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Where writ is more appropriate
1) Proviso to O.5, r.4 - Judgment under O.14 or O.81:
- When the Plaintiff intends to apply for judgment under O. 14 or O. 81, the proceedings are more appropriate to be begun by writ.
2) Question of fact - Pesurohjaya Ibu Kota KL v
Public Trustee KL:
- When a question of fact is at issue, action is to be by way of writ and not by originating summons.
- The facts have to be established by examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
3) Conflict of testimony - Ng Wan Siew v Teoh Sin:
- Writ is more appropriate when there is a conflict of testimony; or
- When there is a necessity in taking parole evidence.
4) Evidence has to be led - Abdul Majid v Haji Abdul Razak:
- When evidence would have to be led, an originating summons is not a suitable medium or process for the determination of the issues raised.
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Wrong mode
1) The test:
- O.1A: Regard as to justice.
- O.2, r.1: Non-compliance is mere irregularity.
2) Scope - Cheow Choo Khoon v Abdul Johari:
- Every omission or mistake in practice or procedure is henceforward to be regarded as an irregularity which the court can and should rectify so long as it can do so without injustice.
MODE OF COMMENCEMENT
Solution for wrong mode
1) Solutions:
- O.28, r.8: continuation of proceedings as if cause or matter begun by writ; or
- Dismissal of summons.
2) Court’s discretion - Hartecon JV Sdn Bhd v Hartela Contractors Ltd:
- Court has discretion whether to allow a proceeding irregularly commenced to continue or to be quashed.
3) Application: O.28, r.8 - Ting Ling Kiew & Anor v Tan Eng Ironworks:
- OTF, it is the most inappropriate & iniquitous to decide disputed facts summarily by relying simply on affidavit evidence;
- This is a proper case for the application of O.28, r.8(1) & the court orders the proceedings to continue as if begun by writ;
- Parties are ordered to deliver their pleadings in accordance with O.18.
4) Application: Dismissal of summons - Cheow Choo Koon v Abdul Johari:
- Judge may also dismiss the summons & leave the P to commence an action by writ;
- This is appropriate when it is so obvious upon the face of the summons or the affidavit in its support that the complaints raised cannot but be tried in a writ action.
- In such a case, P must be taken to know ab initio that the mode he selected to commence the proceedings was manifestly unsuitable.
- P has an opportunity to file the suit afresh.
THE WRIT
Overview
1) Process of issuance of writ
2) Indorsement of writ
3) Validity of writ
4) Renewal of writ
5) Service of writ
PROCESS OF ISSUANCE OF WRIT
Overview
1) The law
2) Date on writ
3) Intitulement on writ
PROCESS OF ISSUANCE OF WRIT
The law
O.6, r.6
PROCESS OF ISSUANCE OF WRIT
date on writ
Jumatsah v Voon Kin Kuet:
- Court held that a writ should be dated on the date writ is FILED not when the writ is SEALED.
PROCESS OF ISSUANCE OF WRIT
Intitulement on writ
Dato Ting Check Sii v Datuk Haji Mohamad Tufail bin Mahmud (2007):
- The statute or Rule of Court under which the court is being moved must also be sufficiently stated.
- Otherwise it would be an embarrassing pleading and may be liable to be struck out, unless sooner amended.
INDORSEMENT OF WRIT
Overview
1) The law
2) Statement of claim
3) Capacity of the party
INDORSEMENT OF WRIT
The law
O.6, r.2(1)
INDORSEMENT OF WRIT
Statement of claim
1) The law - O.6, r.2(1)(a):
- Statement of claim; or
- Concise statement of the nature of the claim made; or
- The relief or remedy required in the action.
- SOC shall comply with O.18.
2) General vs SOC indorsement:
- i.e. ‘General endorsement’ Short and concise statement stating the Plaintiff’s claim and relief which the Plaintiff’s seek.
- i.e. ‘Statement of Claim’ More detailed statement which goes to the details of Plaintiff’s claim and relief in which he seeks.
3) Defective S.O.C - Khoo Kay Hock v E.J Ketting:
- Technical defects amounting to irregularity can be cured by subsequent delivery of a proper statement of claim;
- This is provided that the subsequent delivery of a proper SOC do not prejudice the D’s rights, i.e. depriving him of the benefit of a period of limitation.
- As long as the writ is issued within the prescribed period, court is not concerned with good or bad indorsements.
NOTE: Observe O.1A.
INDORSEMENT OF WRIT
Capacity of the party
1) the law - O.6, r.2(1)(b) & (c):
- capacity of both P & D must be specified in the endorsement of the writ.
2) Failure to specify capacity - Mat Shah v Foo Say Meng:
- It is for P to say that they are suing [D] as administrator and not in his personal capacity;
- OTF, the learned Judge considered that the failure to make the estate of [the deceased] a party was fatal to [P’s] claim & it is enough to dispose of their claim.
NOTE: Observe O.1A.
VALIDITY OF WRIT
The law
1) Validity of writ - O.6, r.7(1):
- Validity: 6 months from issuance;
- Service: within 6 months of the validity;
2) Extension of writ - O.6, r.7(2)
- Twice;
- Not exceeding 6 months each.