Dato’ Sivananthan a/l Shanmugam v Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd, [2016] 3 MLJ 122

Tags

Top Highlights

• court should be quite satisfied that there is no real or practical difference between the issues to be litigated in the new action

• not necessary for parties to be the same in both actions

• Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Badan Perhubungan UMNO Pahang Darul Makmur

• respondent chose not to do so and it is now estopped

• )As the decision in the HTF suit was in the respondent’s favour, the sum effect would be that two different entities would be effectively declared by the same court as the rightful recipients of the said sum of RM2.3m despite the clear fact that only one payment of the said sum was effected by HTF to Cosmotine and not by the respondent to the appellant and KAH. Two different entities cannot in law and in fact be declared as being entitled to the said sum of RM2.3m. The two judgments could not co-exist in valid and effective force, and were really for the same debt as such satisfaction of one would be satisfaction of both (see para 15). (3)The HTF suit ended with the summary judgment being recorded. The continuation of these proceedings against the appellant had clearly violated the doctrine of election, the concept which is ingrained in our legal system and common law that an individual can either opt for the choice of remedies or relinquish it. It is trite law that where a person has determined to follow one of his remedies and has communicated it to the

• parties in this appeal are completely different from the parties in the HTF suit.