The appellant was appointed by the respondent to provide architectural services for the Proposed Bachang Hotel Project (`the project'). Upon the instructions of the respondent, the appellant had prepared the working drawings for building plan approval. The respondent, however, abandoned the project and as at the date of abandonment, the respondent had only paid the appellant RM16,000. The appellant contended that it was entitled to be paid a fee according to the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia Scale of Professional Charges. The appellant instituted proceedings against the respondent for the sum of RM567,576.50. The appellant then applied for summary judgment pursuant to O. 14 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 against the defendants (respondent being the fourth defendant at the material time). The Senior Assistant Registrar (`SAR Rajendran') heard the O. 14 application and held that an interlocutory judgment be entered against the defendants and a date to be fixed for assessment of damages (`SAR Rajendran's order'). The defendants appealed against the said order (`the O. 14 appeal'). The High Court allowed the appeal by the other defendants but dismissed the appeal by the respondent as the contracting party with the architect. The High Court Judge ordered that a date be fixed for the assessment of the amount due to the appellant. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar quantified the amount payable by the respondent to the appellant to be in the sum of RM405,967 (`the DR's order'). The respondent lodged an appeal against the DR's order (`the assessment appeal'). The High Court Judge hearing the assessment appeal allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the DR's order. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the said decision. The Court of Appeal, on its own motion, questioned the validity of the earlier decision of SAR Rajendran who heard the appellant's application for summary judgment and dismissed the appellant's appeal. Leave to appeal to the Federal Court was then granted to the appellant on the question as to whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to treat the order for summary judgment for damages made by SAR Rajendran and all consequential orders thereafter as nullity and to have dismissed the appeal on that basis.

Held (allowing appeal with costs)

Per Zaleha Zahari FCJ delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) It was not open for the Court of Appeal to question SAR Rajendran's order as being a nullity on its own motion. During the period of 19 years (22 September 1989 to 8 April 2009) since the issuance of the order, none of the parties had questioned the validity of SAR Rajendran's order. In view of the fact that SAR Rajendran's order had been the subject matter of an appeal before the High Court Judge, the order of the High Court Judge who heard the O. 14 appeal was the effective order in respect of the O. 14 application. The order of the High Court Judge in respect of the O. 14 appeal was not for "assessment of damages" but instead "quantification of the amount due to the appellant". (para 25)

(2) The appellant's claim, pursuant to a contract which incorporated the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia Scale of Professional Charges (which included a formula as to an architect's entitlement of fees on the abandonment of a project), being analogous to a claim for liquidated and ascertained damages, could be the subject of an application for summary judgment. SAR Rajendran, in hearing the O. 14 application, had the jurisdiction to make the order which he did pursuant to O. 14 r. 3, to give interlocutory judgment on liability, but the quantum, as to the application of the prescribed formula, to be assessed. (para 26)

(3) The Court of Appeal erred in ruling SAR Rajendran's order to be a nullity, striking out the appellant's appeal and making the consequential orders which it did. Thus, the answer to the question of law posed was accordingly in the affirmative. Hence, the decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside. (paras 27 & 28)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu telah dilantik oleh responden untuk menyediakan perkhidmatan senibina untuk Cadangan Projek Hotel Bachang ("projek"). Atas arahan responden, perayu telah menyiapkan lukisan kerja untuk kelulusan pelan bangunan. Responden, walau bagaimanapun, telah meninggalkan projek itu dan pada tarikh projek itu dihentikan, responden hanya telah membayar perayu RM16,000. Perayu berhujah bahawa ia berhak dibayar amaun menurut Skala Caj Profesional Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia. Perayu memulakan prosiding terhadap responden untuk amaun RM567,576.50. Perayu kemudiannya memohon penghakiman terus di bawah A. 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 terhadap defendan-defendan (responden adalah defendan keempat pada masa itu). Penolong Kanan Pendaftar (`PKP Rajendran') telah mendengar permohonan A. 14 dan memutuskan satu penghakiman interlokutori dimasukkan terhadap defendan-defendan dan penetapan tarikh taksiran ganti rugi (`perintah PKP Rajendran'). Defendan-defendan merayu terhadap perintah tersebut (`rayuan A. 14'). Mahkamah Tinggi membenarkan rayuan oleh defendan-defendan lain tetapi menolak rayuan oleh responden sebagai pihak yang memasuki kontrak dengan akitek. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi membuat perintah untuk penetapan tarikh pentaksiran jumlah yang terhutang. Kemudian, Timbalan Pendaftar menetapkan bahawa jumlah yang perlu dibayar oleh responden adalah sebanyak RM405,967 (`perintah TP'). Responden merayu terhadap perintah TP (`rayuan pentaksiran'). Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang mendengar rayuan pentaksiran telah membenarkan rayuan responden dan mengenepikan perintah TP. Perayu merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan tersebut. Mahkamah Rayuan, atas usulnya sendiri, mempersoalkan kesahihan keputusan PKP Rajendran sebelum ini yang telah mendengar permohonan penghakiman terus perayu dan seterusnya menolak rayuan perayu. Kebenaran untuk merayu ke Mahkamah Persekutuan telah dibenarkan kepada perayu atas persoalan sama ada Mahkamah Rayuan terkhilaf apabila menganggap perintah penghakiman terus untuk ganti rugi yang dibuat oleh PKP Rajendran adalah tidak sah dan membatalkan segala perintah berbangkit selepas itu dan atas dasar itu telah pun menolak rayuan.

Diputuskan (membenarkan rayuan dengan kos)

Oleh Zaleha Zahari HMP menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Ia tidak terbuka kepada Mahkamah Rayuan untuk mempersoalkan kesahihan perintah PKP Rajendran atas usulnya sendiri. Sepanjang tempoh 19 tahun (22 September 1989 sehingga 8 April 2009) sejak pengeluaran perintah, tiada pihak yang mempersoalkan kesahihan perintah PKP Rajendran. Memandangkan perintah PKP Rajendran telah menjadi hal perkara rayuan di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, perintah Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang mendengar rayuan A. 14 adalah perintah yang efektif berkenaan permohonan A. 14. Perintah Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi berkenaan rayuan A. 14 bukan untuk "taksiran ganti rugi" tetapi untuk "pengiraan jumlah yang terhutang kepada perayu."

(2) Permohonan perayu, menurut suatu kontrak yang memasukkan Skala Caj Profesional Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (yang termasuk formula untuk kelayakan seorang arkitek mendapatkan fi apabila projek dihentikan), adalah seakan-akan serupa dengan permohonan untuk ganti rugi jumlah tertentu dan ditentukan, boleh menjadi hal perkara bagi permohonan penghakiman terus. PKP Rajendran dalam mendengar permohonan A. 14 mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk membuat perintah seperti yang dibuatnya di bawah A. 14 k. 3, untuk memberikan penghakiman interlokutori berkenaan liabiliti, tetapi kuantum, mengenai penggunaan formula yang ditetapkan, harus ditaksirkan.

(3) Mahkamah Rayuan terkhilaf dalam memutuskan bahawa perintah PKP Rajendran adalah tidak sah, membatalkan rayuan perayu dan membuat perintah berbangkit yang dibuatnya. Dengan itu, persoalan undang-undang yang ditimbulkan sewajarnya dijawab secara afirmatif. Maka, keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan diketepikan.

Legislation referred to:

Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 2 rr. 1, 2(1), O. 14 rr. 1(2), 3

For the appellant - WSW Davidson (Esther Chow Ruen Xin with him); M/s Azman Davidson & Co

For the respondent - Ng Aik Beng; M/s AB Ng & Partners

[Editor's note: For the Court of Appeal judgment, please see Akitek Timor v. Tai Kian Cheong [2011] 1 LNS 1739]

Reported by Suhainah Wahiduddin