DISPOSAL OF CASE

ON POINT OF LAW
ORDER 14A RULES OF COURT
2012

CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI

HASSHAN.

1. Introduction
Order 14A is a mechanism to cater for early and expeditious
disposal of any cause or matter based on question of law or
construction of any document arising in the cause and thereby
saves expense and delay which would arise in a full trial.
Either parties to the proceedings may make application under
this Order 14A. Alternatively, the Court or Judge may on its/his
own motion invoke the power to dispose a case under Order 14A.

CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI

HASSHAN.

2. Order 14A RC 2012

1. Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A r. 1)
(1)The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine
any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or
matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that(a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action;
and
(b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any
claim or issue therein.
(2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such
order or judgment as it thinks just.
CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI
HASSHAN.

2. Order 14A RC 2012

(3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties
have had an opportunity of being heard on the question.
(4) The jurisdiction of the Court under this Order may be exercised by a Registrar.
(5) Nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under Order 18, rule 19
or any other provisions of these Rules.
2. Manner in which applications under rule 1 may be made (O. 14A r. 2)
An application under rule 1 may be made by a notice of application or,
notwithstanding Order 32, rule 1, may be made orally in the course of any
interlocutory application to the Court.
CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI
HASSHAN.

3. Requirements of
Order 14A
4 main requirements:
1. The Defendant has entered appearance O.14A r.1(3)
2. The question of law or construction of document is suitable for
determination without going for full trial O.14A r.1(1)(a)
3. Such determination will finally dispose the entire cause or matter
O.14A r.1(1)(b)
4. The parties had an opportunity of being heard on the question of
law O.14A r.1(3)

CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI

HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
In the case of Petroleum Nasional Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu &
Another Appeal [2004] 1 MLJ 8, the Terengganu State Government (Plaintiff)
has sued Petronas (1st Defendant) and Federal Government (2nd Defendant). In
consideration of Petronas being vested with the entire ownership in, and the
exclusive rights, powers, liberties and privileges of exploring, exploiting,
winning and obtaining petroleum whether onshore or offshore of Malaysia,
Petronas was required to make to the Plaintiff cash payment in the form of
yearly sum amounting to the equivalent of 5% of the value of the petroleum
won and saved in the State of Terengganu and sold by Petronas. The
determination and the calculation of the cash payment were elaborated and
expanded in an agreement of 16 September 987 signed between the
Terengganu State Government and Petronas (the supplementary agreement).
Consequently, payments were made by Petronas to the plaintiff from 1978 until
March 2000. Thereafter, Petronas stopped the payment. The stoppage triggered
the plaintiff to file the suit.
CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI
HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
Both Defendants applied to High Court and framed several questions of law
under Order 14A for disposal of the matter without going for full trial.
Cecil Abraham, counsel for Petronas argued that the disputes in the Suit are
mainly centred on the interpretation of the provisions of the Federal
Constitution, the Terengganu State Constitution, the vesting instrument, the
principal agreement and the supplementary agreement, statutes and
conventions mentioned in the pleading.
Plaintiff resisted the application by saying that there are numerous issues of
complexity are raised in the pleadings. Thus, each cause of action itself raises
multiple issues of fact and law. The High Court judge dismissed the Order 14A
application on the ground that the Plaintiff (Terengganu State Government)
should be given the opportunity to call witnesses to give evidence.
CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI
HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
On appeal, the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of High Court and
held:
From the pleadings, we are satisfied that the core or primary issue in the
Suit is whether the plaintiff has, at any time, sovereign rights over
petroleum in the continental shelf adjacent to the coast of Terengganu. This
is the crux of the plaintiff's claim. The core or primary issue is contained in
the first three questions posed in the respective application
The Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal and frame additional question of
law. The Order 14A application was sent back to High Court for re-hearing.

CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI

HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd [2014] 7
CLJ 597- latest Federal Courts decision
Held:
(1)The Court of Appeal in the Terengganu case did not lay down a
hard and fast rule on the application of O. 14A. The decision in the
Terengganu case merely stated some of the relevant factors which
should be considered in dealing with an application under O. 14A
and they are not meant to be exhaustive.

CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI

HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroleum Nasional Bhd [2014] 7
CLJ 597- latest Federal Courts decision
Held:
(4) An issue is only suitable for determination under O. 14A if the
points of law to be determined thereunder have been stated in clear
and precise terms and the facts disclosed by the pleadings and
affidavit evidence are sufficient for the court to make such
determination which would be final as to the entire cause or matter.
In this case, the core issue as per the pleadings which was based on
the breach of contract cause of action is whether the plaintiff has any
rights over petroleum won and saved in the continental shelf off its
coast. This core issue has been sufficiently addressed in the proposed
questions or issues of law pursuant to O.CIVIL
14A
PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI
HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroleum Nasional Bhd [2014] 7
CLJ 597- latest Federal Courts decision
Held:
(4) An issue is only suitable for determination under O. 14A if the
points of law to be determined thereunder have been stated in clear
and precise terms and the facts disclosed by the pleadings and
affidavit evidence are sufficient for the court to make such
determination which would be final as to the entire cause or matter.
In this case, the core issue as per the pleadings which was based on
the breach of contract cause of action is whether the plaintiff has any
rights over petroleum won and saved in the continental shelf off its
coast. This core issue has been sufficiently addressed in the proposed
questions or issues of law pursuant to O.CIVIL
14A
PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI
HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
Please read the other cases on Order 14A application:
Bato Bagi & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak & Another Appeal [2011] 8 CLJ 766
(FC)
CIMB Bank Berhad v. Gan Teow Hooi & Ors [2012] 9 CLJ 1003 (CA)
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Pomtian v. Ossons Ventures Sdn Bhd [2009] 6 MLJ 182
(CA)
Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2008] 2 MLJ 812 (CA)
Lekaz Constructions Sdn Bhd v. KOP Petroleum Sdn Bhd [2003] 4 CLJ 377
Datuk Dr. Awang Adek Hussin lwn. The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd [2012] 10
CLJ 340 (HC)
CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI
HASSHAN.

4. Application of Order
14A
An application under Order 14A is inappropriate in the following situation:
(a) When the issues of facts are interwoven with legal issues raised. The
court will not split the legal and factual determination. To do so would
in effect be to give rulings in vacuo or on a hypothetical ruling see
FC decision in Thein Hong Teck v. Mohd Afrizan bin Hussain
[2012] 2 MLJ 299
(b) When there are conflicting allegations of facts. See Savant-Asia Sdn
Bhd v. Sunway PMI-Pile Construction Sdn Bhd [2009] 5 MLJ
754 (FC)

CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI

HASSHAN.

5. Procedure for Order

14A
Order 14A rule 2 RC 2012
Manner in which applications under rule 1 may be made
An application under rule 1 may be made by a notice of application
or, notwithstanding Order 32, rule 1, may be made orally in the
course of any interlocutory application to the Court.

CIVIL PROCEDURE II (UK4063). 2015. HIZRI

HASSHAN.