MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN HASHIM 2011283422 ADVANCED CIVIL PROCEDURE I

CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Facts gathering to satisfy all ingredients of the claim

2. All material facts must be established before the parties can be entitled for the claim
 Dosset Yacht
Dorm boys escaped and caused damage to several yachts
Claim under negligence against the Home Office – therefore must satisfy the
ingredients namely duty of care, breach of duty of care and damage
Held – since the Home Office knew the boys had often escaped at night and the
children were delinquents = duty of care – the guard did not guard properly
=breach – yachts damaged = damage
Unless and until all the elements are satisfied, cause of action will not accrue

 Lim Kean v Choo Koon

1957 – P started payment in excess – rental increased by the Board
1963 – argued by D to be barred
1966 – complaint answered by the Board – time starts running here, if the Board
did not make the order, no way to determine whether in excess or not

 Taib Awang
Claimed wrongly prosecuted in the Kadi Court
Ct outlines several elements
1. D prosecuted him
2. Prosecution ended in his acquittal
3. Prosecution lacks reasonable case
4. Prosecution acted maliciously
Held – since the case in Kadi court was established against him, element 2 and 3
failed to be satisfied – no cause of action

 Gov of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang

P applied for a declaration that the letter of intent issued by the government to
UEM as invalid + application for permanent injunction to restraint UEM from
engaging into a contract with the government

FOR DOMESTIC USE ONLY Page 1

MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN HASHIM 2011283422 ADVANCED CIVIL PROCEDURE I

Held – P has no relationship whatsoever between the parties and cannot establish
cause of action- since no cause of action = no case

 Sio Koon Lin v SB Mehra

P entered into a business venture with D – form a limited company
P realized that D had entered into a similar business in partnership
Agreed – P to be paid half of the share – in installments – RM35k first on 12 Oct
1972, subsequent – RM 10k per month
P took action on 7 Oct – 14 Oct P amended the claim to recover all the sums due
Held – no cause of action

 Simetech v Yeoh Sdn Bhd

D = main contractor, P = sub-contractor – air-conditioning and ventilation system
Agreed – payment to P as soon as architect certifies that the work had been
properly done – D failed to pay
P took action for the balance payable – later amended the claim
Held – no cause of action for the second amount

FOR DOMESTIC USE ONLY Page 2